Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

British and Continental Bank Bill [Lords],

To be read a second time upon Wednesday.

Glasgow Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the third time, and passed.

PERSONS IN RECEIPT OF POOR LAW RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES).

Copy ordered, "of Statement of the number of Persons in receipt of Poor Law Relief in England and Wales on or about the 1st day of January, 1919 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 433, of Session 1914–16), with some particulars of the numbers in receipt of such relief at various dates during the War."—[Dr. Addison.]

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

PITS CLOSED.

Major KELLEY: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has ascertained from the Coal Control Department the number of pits which have been closed down by exhaustion during the period of control?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): During the last two years 180 coal mines or seams were abandoned, 197 were opened, and 89 were reopened. The majority, it should be pointed out, were small shallow mines.

PROFITS (LIMITATION).

Major KELLEY: 2.
asked if the 1s. 2d. per ton is intended to be a flat rate or
will some owners get more, as much as 1s. 6d. or 1s. 9d., and others get less, say 3d. or nothing?

Sir A. GEDDES: The 1s. 2d. per ton. is not intended to be a flat rate. A pool will be formed equal in amount to the aggregate output in tons multiplied by 1s. 2d., and undertakings will draw from the pool in proportion to their pre-war standard of profits.

Captain COOTE: In the case of a colliery company which owns a number of pits, some of which make more than 1s. 2d. and others less or nothing, will the colliery company in question draw 1s. 2d. on the whole of their output, or will they be able to average 1s. 2d. on their whole output?

Sir A. GEDDES: I do not quite follow the point raised. Each undertaking will draw in relation to its standard.

Mr. HOLMES: Will regard be had to the increase of output as compared with pre-war output?

Sir A. GEDDES: That is a matter which might properly be discussed at a later stage. The present proposal—and this is what the coal owners as a whole point out—is that for this year the profits should be drawn from the pool on a basis of pre-war standard.

SINKING (COSTS).

Major KELLEY: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has ascertained the present costs of sinking, and consequently capital expenditure now necessary to sink, as compared with the cost during the five pre-war years; and, if so, will he state what the comparison of cost is?

Sir A. GEDDES: No detailed investigation into the present cost of sinking has been made, and as such cost is necessarily spread over a number of years, during which conditions and consequently costs may vary considerably, the results of any such investigation—which would involve much expenditure of time and labour—could only be in the nature of an estimate.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Is it not safe to assume that the present cost is something more than double?

Sir A. GEDDES: It might be quite safe to assume that, but if I said that I assumed that, it would not be an answer to the question I have been asked.

FINANCIAL ADJUSTMENT.

Major KELLEY: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, with reference to his statement that there will be a profit of £17,000,000 in the hands of the Coal Controller for the present financial year, he will state the cost of production of the total output, and the estimated quantity and selling price of coal for domestic gas and electricity use, for export, for colliery consumption, including miners' coal, and for general industrial use, respectively; how he proposes to effect the reduction of 10s. per ton, having regard to the Price of Coal Limitation Act of 1915; and from what fund does he propose to make up the price directed to be charged by Orders made under that Act?

Sir A. GEDDES: The hon. Member is, I think, under some misapprehension. If he will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT for 28th November, column 1117, he will, I think, find that the figure of £17,000,000 to which he refers is not expected to be in the hands of the Coal Controller at any time. In view of the investigation which is now being made by an independent firm of chartered accountants, I do not think it is advisable to anticipate their Report, which will be laid before the House in due course. The reduction of 10s. per ton is given effect to under the provisions of the Coal (Pit's Mouth) Prices Order and direction, dated the 29th November. With regard to the third part of the question, the hon. and gallant Member will now be in possession of a print of the Coal Industry (Emergency) Bill, under the provisions of which it is proposed to regulate the profits of coal-owners for this year.

Sir S. ROBERTS: Is the Coal Controller now asking colliery companies to finance a loss which would be declared on the maximum price?

Sir A. GEDDES: No, Sir; that is not what the Coal Controller is discussing with the coal-owners. It is those collieries in which it is reasonably anticipated that there will be a surplus over the 1s. 2d. from whom the coal levy will in the normal course be raised. They are being asked to finance the reduced price in the case of domestic coal. That only applies to those collieries and not to other collieries in which the loss is over all.

Mr. TERRELL: If these owners refuse to contribute, will this not mean that the reduction of 10s. will be a loss to the Treasury?

Sir A. GEDDES: It would depend upon the result of the procedure in this House in connection with the Coal Industry (Emergency) Bill. If that Bill becomes law it would not be open to the coal-owners to refuse to contribute.

OUTPUT.

Mr. HARTSHORN: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the official estimate that, taking the last four weeks in tile coal industry, the highest figures obtainable without any stoppages or without any holidays represent 200 tons per person employed, and the official estimate that the average number of persons employed in the latest period for which figures are available was 1,154,500, he will say whether the best four weeks since 16th July were the weeks ending 18th October, 25th October, 8th November, and 15th November; whether the average weekly output for those four weeks was 4,743,090 tons; whether that represents an output at the rate of 246,640,680 tons per annum and of 213 tons per person employed; and, if so, whether he will say on what the official estimate of 200 tons was based?

Sir A. GEDDES: I presume the hon. Member alludes to the statement made by me in the course of the Debate in the House on the 28th November. My statement had reference to the best consecutive four weeks' output we have had since 14th July, weeks in which there were no holidays or stoppages to affect the figures seriously. Taking these output figures as a basis for estimating an annual output after making due allowance for holidays and stoppages, and having regard to the average number of persons employed during these four weeks, namely, 1,163,500, an annual output per person employed of approximately 200 tons is arrived at.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman asserted that if you take four weeks' output as the basis, without any stoppage or without any holidays, you cannot get more than 200 tons annually per man? Here is the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir A. GEDDES: I do not think so. That was not what was in my mind. I said the best four weeks. I did not mean the best four isolated weeks. Taking the recognised holidays into consideration it turned out that we get 200 tons per person employed per annum.

Mr. HARTSHORN: What allowance in the estimate does the right hon. Gentleman make from now to the remainder of the year for holidays and stoppages?

Sir A. GEDDES: It is not a question of the remainder of the year, but a yearly rate calculated from a four weeks' period. Therefore, one would have to allow the usual holidays—Christmas, New Year, Easter, Whitsuntide, and August.

MINE-OWNERS' PROFITS.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 9.
asked whether, with reference to the sum of 1s. 2d. per ton of coal raised which the Interim Report of 20th March, 1919, of the Sankey Committee recommended should be allowed to coal-owners, he will state on what basis of calculation that sum was arrived at, and what Clauses of the Coal Mines Control Agreement of 28th July, 1917, have a bearing on this question; whether the anticipations and assumptions as to output profits and prices which were made in Clauses 9 and 10 of the Interim Report above referred to have been verified by events; if not, in what respect they have proved inaccurate; and whether these inaccuracies vitiate the basis and calculations on which the sum of 1s. 2d. per ton was arrived at?

Sir A. GEDDES: Mr. Justice Sankey and his colleagues who signed the Interim Report have not furnished to the Government any statement of the basis of calculation on which they arrived at the sum of 1s. 2d. per ton raised which they recommended should be allowed to coal-owners; the evidence which they had before them has been published in three volumes, of which the third sets out tables of figures put in by witnesses, from which it appears that 1s. 2d. per ton is slightly in excess of the average profit of the last five pre-war years. The Clauses of the Coal Mines Control Agreement which bear upon the amount of profits receivable or retainable by owners are 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 15, but there is no reason to think that these Clauses were considered in the calculation of the sum of 1s. 2d. per ton. The anticipations and assumptions as to output profits and prices which were made in Clauses 9 and 10 of the Interim Report have not so far been verified by events. Had Mr. Justice Sankey and his colleagues been able to predict the events which have happened since they made their recommendations, I cannot say what differ-
ence, if any, it would have made in the basis and calculations on which the sum of 1s. 2d. per ton was arrived at.

Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the fact that these estimates made by the Sankey Commission have proved to be inaccurate, is there not a case for a reinvestigation of the process by which they arrived at the 1s. 2d.?

Mr. SWAN: What is the average return per cent. on the capital invested represented by the 1s. 2d. per ton?

Sir A. GEDDES: I would not like to give a figure as to that without notice. In reference to the other point, the figure 1s. 2d. was accepted by the Government at the time as a proper basis on which the whole finance in reference to coal production should be founded, and that figure has been adopted since then.

Mr. HOLMES: Is it not a fact that on Friday week the House by a large majority refused to investigate the figures which the hon. Member for York now wants investigated?

Sir W. RAEBURN: Did not the Commission deal not with profits but with wages and hours?

Sir A. GEDDES: Necessarily the question of profits came in as soon as the question of wages was being discussed. They are inextricably bound up together in all our operations.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is not it open to the House and the Government without any breach of trust to reconsider the amount of 1s. 2d. a ton in view of the facts as they have turned out?

Sir A. GEDDES: I hesitate to express any opinion as to what the House would do without any breach of faith, but I do not think that the Government would very easily depart from the undertaking given without very good reason being shown in the House without coming somewhere near a breach of faith.

Mr. HOLMES: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the aggregate of the pre-war standards of all the colliery undertakings after deducting the amounts representing the profits arising from sources other than the raising of coal?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Estimates of the pre-war standards of
colliery undertakings are given in Tables 1, 4 and 7 of Appendix 54 to the Minutes of Evidence of the Coal Industry Commission. These standards include profits arising from sources other than the raising of coal, which profits cannot be estimated so far as the standards are concerned.
The 1917 estimated standards stated are:


Table.
Concerns.
Amount.


1.
Non-composite
£9,899,000


4.
Composite, which include coke ovens
10,266,000


7.
Composite, which do not include coke ovens
3,248,000

HOUSEHOLD FUEL AND LIGHTING ORDERS.

Mr. HIRST: 10.
asked how many registered coal merchants have been prosecuted under the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1918, and the Order for 1919, respectively?

Sir A. GEDDES: The number of registered coal merchants and dealers prosecuted under the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1918, was 240; under the Order for 1919, the number is 93 up to the present date.

Mr. J. JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman do something to see that the people get coal in my district, where the merchants have not been selling coal?

Sir A. GEDDES: I think that that is a question of delivery of coal in the district, which has been already discussed in this House, and it has been explained that the difficulty was transport, that the matter was in hand, and that a solution, it was hoped, was being found.

Mr. F. HALL: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any of the Coal Controller's divisional or other representatives, appointed under the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, were previously in the employment of colliery proprietors, coal merchants, factors, or any person directly or indirectly interested in the sale of coal?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, Sir.

SIX-SHILLING INCREASE (BASIS).

Mr. A. T. DAVIES: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give a detailed Return of the figures upon which the 6s. per ton increase on coal was based in July last?

Sir A. GEDDES: The figures upon which the 6s. per ton increase in the price of coal was based are set out in detail in a White Paper (Cmd. 252) presented to Parliament last July

GAS AND ELECTRIC LIGHTING UNDERTAKINGS.

Mr. SWAN: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will pay compensation to gas and electric lighting undertakings which held stocks of coal purchased before the. 10s. reduction in price, in order to enable these undertakings to make an immediate reduction in their charges for gas and electricity supplied for household purposes?

Sir A. GEDDES: I fear that it is not practicable to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Member.

Dr. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in certain areas in London the price of electricity has gone up since the reduction in the price of coal?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am aware that in certain cases, which had been decided on before the reduction in the price of coal was announced, there has been an increase, and I think that the two cases are absolutely at one, but that does not mean that there will not be a reduction at the earliest possible moment.

MINERS' HOURS REDUCTION (COST).

Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he could explain the estimate in paragraph 7 of Mr. Justice Sankey's First Report that the cost of the reduction in hours would be £13,000,000?

Sir A. GEDDES: Mr. Justice Sankey and his colleagues who signed the Interim Report have not furnished to the Government any statement explaining the estimate that the cost of the reduction in hours would be £13,000,000.

EXPORT AND BUNKER COAL.

Mr. L. SCOTT: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he would, by Wednesday next, before the Debate upon the Second Reading of the Coal Industry (Emergency) Bill, circulate a Paper showing in summary form the total sales of coal for export and bunkers, both foreign and home-trade, with the approximate total f.o.b. prices received therefor during each of the months of the present
year and, by way of comparison, the total quantities and prices received for the year 1918; and how much more had been received for exports and bunkers than was anticipated by Mr. Justice Sankey when he said, in paragraph 10 of his first Report, that there would be a loss of about £9,000,000 on present prices?

Sir A. GEDDES: I will arrange for the statement asked for, as far as the figures are available, to be printed in the OFFICIAL

MONTHLY RETURN of Coal Exports and Foreign and Coastwise Bunkers for the period from January, 1918 to October, 1919 (inclusive)—


Month.
* Coal exports.
Foreign bunkers.
¶ Coast wise bunkers.


†Quantity.
†Value.
‡Price per ton f.o.b.
† Quantity.
║Value.
§Price per ton f.o.b.
Quantity.
Value.
Price per ton f.o.b.


(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)


1918.
Tons.
£
s.
d.
Tons.
£
s.
d.
Tons.
£
s.
d.


Jan.
…
2,685,026
3,771,928
28
1
754,143
1,058,942
28
1
87,536
120,362
27
6


Feb.
…
2,435,123
3,410,753
28
0
780,857
1,093,199
28
0
92,059
126,581
27
6


March
…
2,462,019
3,492,692
28
4
810,803
1,148,637
28
4
86,883
119,464
27
6


April
…
2,584,580
3,564,216
27
7
691,241
953,336
27
7
87,702
120,590
27
6


May
…
2,813,161
3,887,371
27
8
741,591
1,025,868
27
8
84,672
116,424
27
6


June
…
2,369,586
3,299,224
27
10
666,311
927,287
27
10
84,408
126,612
30
0


July
…
2,830,888
4,276,842
30
2
765,958
1,155,320
30
2
84,206
134,729
32
0


August
3,362,206
5,395,908
32
1
743,061
1,191,994
32
1
86,110
137,776
32
0


Sept.
…
2,792,742
4,552,799
32
7
742,183
1,209,140
32
7
81,373
130,196
32
0


October
2,909,319
4,923,424
33
10
706,480
1,195,129
33
10
91,987
147,179
32
0


Nov.
…
2,415,965
3,977,598
32
11
752,953
1,239,235
32
11
82,560
132,096
32
0


Dec.
…
2,092,289
3,473,737
33
2
600,895
996,484
33
2
84,602
135,363
32
0


1919.














Jan.
…
2,349,573
4,072,892
34
8
937,255
1,624,575
34
8
91,756
146,809
32
0


Feb.
…
2,709,239
4,887,692
36
1
821,830
1,482,718
36
1
95,021
152,673
32
0


March
…
3,880,628
6,863,249
35
4
938,837
1,658,612
35
4
106,000
169,600
32
0


April
…
2,568,096
4,887,174
38
1
886,877
1,688 762
38
1
110,378
176,605
32
0


May
…
3,797,076
7,353,107
38
9
1,170,572
2,267,983
38
9
97,999
156,798
32
0


June
…
3,258,442
6,932,233
42
7
992,808
2,113,854
42
7
94,182
176,983
37
7


July
…
3,427,556
8,452,042
49
4
1,066,854
2,631,573
49
4
106,902
237,127
44
4


August
2,170,813
5,537,508
51
0
1,123,580
2,865,129
51
0
132,647
305,088
46
0


Sept.
…
2,677,189
7,732,919
57
9
1,130,484
3,264,273
57
9
102,066
269,199
52
9


October
2,729,625
8,516,669
62
5
973,290
3,037,476
62
5
120,000
360,000
60
0












(estimate)




* Excluding coke and manufactured fuel.


† The figures in these columns are published in the trade and navigation returns issued monthly.


‡ These figures are calculated from columns (1) and (2).


§The price per ton f.o b. for foreign bunkers shewn in this column corresponds with the export price in column 6. It is the best estimate that can be given.


║These figures are calculated from columns (4) and (6).


¶The figures shewing the value and price per ton of coastwise bunkers are estimates.

STOCKS AT PIT HEADS.

Mr. L. SCOTT: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the stocks of coal at the pit's head in Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Staffordshire had materially increased since coal for bunkering purposes from these districts had been prohibited for shipment in the Mersey ports; what the total quantity of the accumulated

REPORT of to-day's proceedings. With regard to the second part of the question, Mr. Justice Sankey gave no figures to indicate what, in his opinion, would be the tonnage and value of coal sold for export and bunkers in the year 1919, and I regret, therefore, that I cannot give the information asked for by the hon. Member.

The following is the statement referred to:—

coal now amounted to in each of the said counties; and what steps were being taken to distribute the same?

Sir A. GEDDES: The total stock of coal at the pits' head in the three counties named has increased by 282,000 tons during the period in question, but 243,000 tons of the increase took place during the railway strike.
The total quantity of the coal accumulated at the pit in the three counties at the present time is as follows:



Tons.


Lancashire
165,000


Yorkshire
241,000


Staffordshire
54,000



460,000


The total net increase since the end of the railway strike is only 15,000 tons. Stocks are decreasing in Lancashire and Staffordshire, and every effort is being made to improve the supply of wagons for the transport of coal from collieries in Yorkshire.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether, in view of these figures, the right hon. Gentleman will not permit more coal to be sent from South Yorkshire for export?

Sir A. GEDDES: The whole trouble comes in the sending. That is the whole difficulty—getting it away.

HOUSEHOLD PURCHASES (LIMITATION).

Mr. HOLMES: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether an Order was issued by the Coal Controller during the Yorkshire coal strike in July last limiting purchases of coal in the Metropolitan area to 2 hundredweight per week?

Sir A. GEDDES: The answer is in the affirmative. In this connection I have to apologise to the hon. Member for having unwittingly given him wrong information in a letter which I wrote to him on the 3rd December and for having questioned the accuracy of his statement in the Debate of 28th November. An Order was issued on 22nd July limiting deliveries in the Metropolitan area to 2 cwt. per week and was withdrawn on 28th July. This I had entirely lost sight of. In these circumstances I can only apologise for the mistake which I made and thank the hon. Member for this opportunity of correcting my error.

Mr. HOLMES: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that statement.

EXCESS PROFITS DUTY (ASSESSMENT).

Mr. HOLMES: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the colliery companies would be assessed to Excess Profits Duty for the year ending 31st March, 1920, as separate entities; whether, in the event of the profits of an individual company for that year exceed-
ing its profits standard, it would be liable to pay Excess Profits Duty, notwithstanding the fact that the profits retainable by it would he less than its profits standard; whether, in the event of its profits being less than its profits standard, it would be able to claim by reason of such deficiency repayment of Excess Profits Duty out of duties previously paid by it; and whether, in the former case, the receipt of Excess Profits Duty by the Treasury would constitute a tax on the consumer of coal and, in the latter case, the repayment of Excess Profits Duty by the Treasury would constitute a subsidy to the coal industry from the national exchequer?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In the event of the Coal Industry (Emergency) Bill becoming law, a colliery company will be liable to Excess Profits Duty for the year ending 21st March, 1920, only if its profits, after taking into account "coal levy" and "coal award" under the provisions of that Bill, exceed the pre-war standard of profits. Where such profits are less than the pre-war standard of profits, a title to repayment of Excess Profits Duty will arise under the provisions of Section 38 (3) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, as subsequently amended. With regard to the fourth part of the question, the first case does net arise and the second case is governed by the statutory provisions relating to Excess Profits Duty which are applicable to all businesses affected by it and are not peculiar to the coal industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 5.
asked to what approximate extent it may be roughly assumed that the value of our invisible exports will reduce the excess of value of our imports over our exports for the eleven months ending 30th November, 1919; and, similarly, for the whole year 1919?

Sir A. GEDDES: It is roughly estimated that the excess value of imports over exports of merchandise during the period of eleven months ended 30th November is offset to the extent of about three-fourths by the earnings of British shipping interest on British investment abroad, banking, insurance, and other commissions, the value of bunker coal,
etc. Precise figures are, in the nature of the case, not ascertainable, but I anticipate that the figure of three-fourths will not be far wrong on the working of the whole year.

Mr. SAMUEL: Does that mean, roughly, that we shall have undisclosed invisible exports to the amount of over £450,000,000 out of a possible £600,000,000 excess of imports?

Sir A. GEDDES: These figures are very rough. Somewhere about that.

Mr. A. T. DAVIES: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government will consider the excision of the plenary powers to prevent dumping given to the Trade Regulation Committee under the Imports and Exports Bill; whether it is proposed to set up a representative Court of Appeal against decisions of the Trade Regulation Committee; and whether he will be prepared to extend the limit of members of the Committee, in order that they may include members of the. chambers of commerce, employers, and trade unions?

Sir A. GEDDES: The points raised by the hon. Member could, I think, be most conveniently considered when the Bill is in Committee.

Mr. HOUSTON: 15 and 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he can state in tonnage (weight and cubic measurement) the total amount of imports into this country during the year 1913 and the total amount of exports in tonnage

(1) The approximate (net) weight of the goods Imported and Exported, calculated from the information supplied to the Customs as to quantities and values, was as follows:—


—
Total imports.
Exports of British produce and manufactures.


Coal, coke and manufactured fuel.
Other goods.







Tons.
Tons.
Tons.


Calendar Year 1913
…
…
…
…
54,500,000
76,687,000
14,694,000


Twelve months ended October, 1919
…
…
37,950,000
36,967,000
6,812,000


Month of October, 1919
…
…
…
…
4,130,000
3,020,000
701,000

(2) The particulars desired by the hon. Member are the following:—


—
Imports.
Exports of United Kingdom produce and manufactures.
Exports of Foreign and Colonial merchandise.







£
£
£


Calendar year 1913
…
…
…
…
768,734,739
525,245,289
109,575,037


Twelve months ended November, 1919
…
1,578,946,148
745,797,286
141,274,203


Month of November, 1919
…
…
…
143,564,907
87,110,007
20,266,933

(weight and cubic measurement) during the same period; whether he can state the total amount of imports in tonnage (weight and cubic measurement) during the last twelve months for which he has particulars, and up to what date, also the total amount of exports in tonnage (weight and cubic measurement) during the same period; whether he can give the total amount of imports in tonnage (weight and cubic measurement) during the last month for which he has particulars and the month in question, and the total amount of exports in tonnage (weight and cubic measurement) during the same period?

(2) whether he can state in values the total amount of imports into this country during the year 1913, and the total amount of exports during the same period; whether he can state in values the total amount of imports into this country during the last twelve months for which he has particulars and up to what date; also the total amount of exports in values during the same period; and whether he can give the total amount in values of the imports into this country during the last month for which he has particulars, and the month in question, and the total amount in values of exports during the same period?

Sir A. GEDDES: Information as to the cubic measurement of imports and exports is not available. I will have the other information asked for in these questions circulated as Statistical Tables in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following are the tables referred to:

Mr. HOUSTON: In view of the statistics published to-day and the serious discrepancy between imports and exports, and the adverse effect which this has upon exchange and the prices of food in this country, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that articles of luxury and nonessentials either should be prohibited from being imported or restricted?

Sir A. GEDDES: That would raise very difficult controversial questions. At present the visible exports amount to about three-fourths of the difference between the exports and the imports, and the exports are moving in the right direction, and so now are the imports. The quantities of luxuries imported are very small.

LINEN TRADE (FLAX SUPPLY).

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the employés in the spinning department of the linen trade are only working half-time, and that very shortly these works will be closed down entirely; whether he is aware that this is caused by shortage of raw material, namely, flax, and that this trade is largely dependent on material grown in Russia; whether he can say if there are large stocks in Russian territory now occupied by troops friendly to this country; and, if so, what measures are being taken to procure this material, so vital to the interests of all concerned?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am aware that the output of the flax spinners, which is at present limited to six-elevenths of their normal production, may have to be still further reduced in the near future, in consequence of the shortage of raw material, of which Russia was the principal source of supply before the War. I understand that the stocks of flax available for shipment from Baltic ports fall far below the quantities normally exported from Russia to this country. At the desire of the trade the Government purchase of Russian flax ceased shortly after the Armistice, and the task of obtaining supplies reverted to private hands. I understand that some shipments are being arranged.

FREIGHTS AND BUNKER COAL.

Mr. HOUSTON: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that by direction of the Ministry of Shipping British steamers carry wheat from the Argentine to this country at 62s. 6d. per ton, and that rates of freight
earned by other steamers to Continental ports are about 200s. per ton; whether he is aware that all these steamers obtain bunker coal from British coaling depots at the Argentine and en en route to ports of discharge at the same price; whether he can see his way, with a view to reducing the price of food in this country, to arrange to charge all steamers bringing food to this country at the Ministry of Shipping rate of freight the same price for bunker coal, but charging a higher price for bunker coal to steamers carrying cargoes to other countries at the greatly enhanced rates of freight; and whether he is aware that a precedent for such action has been established by the action of the United States authorities in refusing to supply bunker coal to foreign steamships (British) until after American steamers have been supplied?

Sir A. GEDDES: The points raised by the hon. Member have been prominently before me for some time and have received and are receiving most careful consideration, both by the Board of Trade and the Shipping Controller. At present I am unable to discover any satisfactory and fair method of carrying out the suggestions put forward. The points will, however, not be lost sight of.

Mr. HOUSTON: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that anything that can be done to reduce the price of food in this country is desirable, and that by obtaining the enhanced prices suggested in this question he would also help the financial position?

Sir A. GEDDES: There are no two opinions as to the desirability of reducing the price of food and other necessaries, but the suggestion put forward in this question is s very difficult one to carry out.

Earl WINTERTON: Are not high height rates very largely responsible for the high prices of food?

Sir A. GEDDES: That is not the case. The freight at which food is carried on Government account is quite a low freight. In same cases it is right down to cost, and the shipowner who actually carries it gets no profit. One of the causes of the high prices of food is, of course, the exchange.

FERRO-ALLOYS (MANUFACTURE).

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he would state the reason for prohibiting the importation of ferro-tungsten; whether, in view of the fact that ferro-chrome and
ferro-tungsten were both equally essential in respect of the manufacture of special steels, whatever conditions of import applied to one ought to apply to the other; whether, in view of the fact that the relative value of exchange with France was against the British manufacturers of ferro-chrome in the open market, he would take whatever steps were necessary to place manufacturers of ferro-chrome in no less favourable position than the manufacturers of ferro-tungsten; whether he was aware that the differential treatment as between Ferro-tungsten and ferrochrome had resulted in the closing down of valuable plant for the manufacture of the latter material with the consequent unemployment of workpeople who were specially trained for this work during the War; and whether, having regard to the fact that chrome ore was an Empire product which was I he subject of close Continental control before the War, he would take such steps as would preserve the manufacture of ferro-alloys which had been so costly to establish during the past five years?

Sir A. GEDDES: Ferro-tungsten and tungsten powder have been placed in the Schedule of products of Unstable Key Industries, of which the importation is prohibited because of their importance in the manufacture of high-speed steel, which is essential for the engineering industries, and the fact that before the War the United Kingdom was entirely dependent for the supply of these products upon Germany. It is difficult to compare the relative values of various alloys with differing applications, and though the importance of ferro-chrome is. I think, fully recognised, the Government felt that the case for its special treatment was less strong that that of the substances and articles whose importation they have restricted. The difficulties in which British manufacturers are placed are, I understand, mainly due to the existence of large stocks in this country. The hon. Member will no doubt have an opportunity of raising the matter again when the House comes to consider in detail the problem of safeguarding key industries.

COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS (WARSHIP ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. DOYLE: 68.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department how many representatives of British trading firms have been provided with accommodation on British warships proceeding to foreign ports; how many
representatives have already sailed; how many applicants are awaiting berths; if their firms are being charged for such accommodation; what arrangements have been made for their periodic return; and if any objections have been lodged by officers of the Royal Navy against the use of warships for such purpose?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD (Additional Parliamentary Secretary Department of Oversea Trade): Detailed arrangements for providing accommodation on British warships for representatives of British trading firms are still under discussion with the Admiralty, and no accommodation has yet been finally allotted. There are on the lists of my Department 300 applications for assistance in obtaining passages to overseas ports, but it is anticipated that accommodation can be found for a very large proportion of these applicants on ordinary liners. I have not thought it necessary to discuss with the Admiralty the question of obtaining return passages, since there is much less difficulty in obtaining homeward berths and no applications for such passages have been received. As regards charges for accommodation on His Majesty's ships, I would refer him to the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on the 26th November, in which it is stated that a charge will be made of 12s. a day for the first fourteen days, and 9s. a day afterwards. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Are the Admiralty making any difficulty in regard to granting these passages?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Quite the contrary. The First Lord of the Admiralty is doing everything in his power to expedite accommodation on ships that are going abroad and to make arrangements for commercial travellers and business men to go on board.

Mr. TERRELL: Then will he state the reason of the delay?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND NATIONAL WAGES BOARD.

Mr. G. TERRELL: 38.
asked the Minister of Transport if he can make any statement with regard to the new Railway Committee?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir E. Geddes): It will be convenient if I explain the position as regards the negotiations with the railway companies and men. There are three aspects.
The first point is the present negotiations on wages. On this, as the Prime Minister stated last Thursday, no public statement can yet be made. I fully appreciate the anxiety of the House and will make one at the earliest moment possible.
The second point is that an arrangement has been come to between the Government and the two unions concerned in the conciliation grades on the railways that, apart from the present negotiations, questions of wages and conditions of service shall, during the period of the present control of railways, under the Ministry of Transport Act, be dealt with by a Central Board, consisting of five railway managers and five representatives of the trade unions, the latter being composed as to three from the National Union of Railway men and two from the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Fire-men, with power to each side to add a sixth member.
Failing agreement by this Central Board, matters in dispute and belonging to the category mentioned—namely, wages and conditions of service—will be referred to a National Wages Board, consisting of four railway managers, four railway workers (or their representatives), and four users of railways (of which one shall be nominated by the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress, one by the Co-operative Union, one by the Federation of British Industries, after consultation with other industrial organisations, and one by the Associated Chamber of Commerce, after similar consultation) with an independent chairman appointed by the Government. It has been agreed by the unions concerned that no strike shall take place on account of a dispute arising on these matters until one month after the question in dispute has been referred to the National Wages Board.
Local committees, to which matters of purely local and other than national importance are to be referred, will be set up, and discussions are taking place a the present time as to their constitution, scope and functions.
The third matter which has formed the subject of conversation with the railway-
men is their representation in connection with the control exercised under the Ministry of Transport Act.
The Railway Executive Committee—as such—will cease to exist (probably on 1st January), and an Advisory Committee will then be set up. It will consist of twelve general managers and four representatives of the workers.
I will have the names of this Committee printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following are the names of the Advisory Committee:

Mr. C. Aldington, Great Western Railway.
Mr. J. Bromley, Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen.
Sir Alexander Kaye Butterworth, North-Eastern Railway.
Mr. C. T. Cramp, National Union of Railwaymen.
Mr. C. H. Dent, Great Northern Railway.
Sir Francis Dent, South-Eastern and Chatham Railway.
Sir Sam Fay, Great Central Railway.
Sir William Forbes, London, Brighton and South Coast Railway.
Mr. D. A. Matheson, Caledonian Railway.
Mr. F. Tatlow, C.B.E., Midland Railway.
Right Hon. J. H. Thomas, M.P., National Union of Railwaymen
Sir Henry Thornton, K.B.E., Great Eastern Railway.
Mr. A. G. Walkden, Railway Clerks' Association.
Sir Herbert Walker, K. C. B, London and South Western Railway.
Mr. Arthur Watson, C.B.E., Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway.
Sir Thomas Williams, London and North Western Railway

TRAMWAY FARES.

Mr. DOYLE: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the many complaints regarding the greatly increased fares charged on tramways under the management of public bodies, rivalling, if not exceeding, the charges on omnibuses owned by companies which are seeking to make a, dividend; and whether, seeing that the object of Parliament in granting the London County Council and similar authorities a practical monopoly of the public thoroughfares was to serve the interests of the community rather than to
earn a dividend, before granting additional powers to these bodies, he will make it a condition that the claims of the travelling public shall have first consideration?

Sir E. GEDDES: Certain tramway undertakers have been empowered to increase fares in accordance with the provision of the Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1918. Where the undertakers are a local authority, no modification may be authorised which will in any case increase the statutory maximum by more than 50 per cent. or by an amount which is more than sufficient to enable the undertaking to be carried on without loss. In view of the increases in wages and other expenses, increased charges are in some cases warranted; but the hon. Member may rest assured that the claims of the travelling public are given full weight in connection with the consideration of all such applications.

COKE OVENS, CUMBERLAND.

Mr. FORREST: 29.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he was aware that the railway wagons loaded with Durham coke and sent into Cumberland were brought back empty; and whether he would consider the possibility of using those wagons on the return journey for bringing Cumberland coke to the North-Eastern ports, thereby making greater use of the wagons and assist in increasing employment at the Cumberland coke ovens which were now working at less than half their capacity?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am aware of this movement of coke in both directions, and am inquiring as to the best means of dealing with it.

LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY.

Captain MOREING: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention had been called to the unpunctual running of the local services of the London and South-Western Railway Company; and whether he would take any steps to secure its improvement?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am aware of unpunctuality in the running of local services on the London and South Western Railways during the last two or three weeks, and am informed that the company is doing its utmost to effect an improvement, and that some success has so far attended their efforts.

Sir N. GRIFFITHS: 37.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the overcrowded travelling conditions prevailing between Clapham Junction and Waterloo Stations on the London and South-Western Railway, and whether some additional rolling stock can be provided to relieve the serious inconvenience to passengers which now exists during the morning and evening train services?

Sir E. GEDDES: The London and South-Western Railway Company ordered some months ago carriages to strengthen the electric trains running between Clapham Junction and Waterloo, but completion has been held up owing to the Moulders' strike.

MAIN ROADS, NORTH WALES.

Sir R. THOMAS: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the main roads in North Wales were dangerous, and, in some places, quite unfit for horse traffic on account of the method of tarring the surface without using stone shippings; and whether he would issue instructions to the authorities concerned to treat the roads in such a way that they might be useful for agriculturists as well as for motorists?

Sir E. GEDDES: I have no knowledge that the main roads in North Wales are dangerous or unfit for horse traffic. I am, however, aware that owners and users of horses are, generally, complaining of the unsuitability of tar-bound and tar-treated roads for horses. Realising the great importance of the subject, I have caused an expert Committee to be set up, who will make inspections and experiments, and advise as to the remedies to be undertaken with a view of securing better foothold.

RAILWAY WAGONS (SHORTAGE).

Mr. G. TERRELL: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he was aware that considerable delay in the transport of merchandise was owing to the shortage of wagons; whether the shortage of wagons was due in many instances to the refusal of owners to repair wagons and to build new ones until they knew exactly the policy of the Government and the compensation which they were to receive if the wagons were taken over; whether he was aware that the matter was now of great national urgency and importance; and what course he proposed to take regard to the matter?

ANEURIN WILLIAMS: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention had been called to the serious loss of output and employment at the Consett Steel Works, county Durham, through the fact that the North-Eastern Railway Company had not supplied an adequate number of trucks to convey the finished steel to customers; whether he was aware that, during the four weeks ended 26th November, certain of the mills lost fourteen shifts from the above cause and that they had since been stopped again, with a very serious effect on the prosperity of the district; whether during the War trucks were available for a larger output than the present output of these mills; and whether trucks had been diverted to other traffic; and, if so, why?

Captain BAGLEY: 39.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, and, if so, when he proposed to make a statement in the House on the congestion of goods traffic?

Viscount CURZON: 63.
asked the Minister of Transport how many trucks were required to relieve the traffic congestion on the railways; whether he could give any estimate of the number now under construction and under repair; whether the facilities for new construction were being utilised to the fullest extent, and what causes, if any, were operating to retard new construction; whether the moulders strike was affecting this question and, if so, to what extent; whether he could give any indication of its effect upon the cost of living; whether a complete declaration of Government policy with regard to the future of the railways could be made; and whether the removal of Government control and the resumption of competition between the various companies would affect the situation, and to what extent?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am most anxious to take the House fully into my confidence on this matter, and to afford the fullest information. I find it is impossible to do justice to its intricacies in replies to questions, and if it will suit the convenience of Members, I propose meeting those interested in Committee Room 9 at 6 p.m. on Thursday next. I should be personally very grateful if Members with special knowledge could conveniently attend.

Major GRAEME: Is not the proper place to deal with this question on the floor of the House, and not at a private meeting?

Sir E. GEDDES: We do not intend to have the meeting in the least private, but open to every Member who wishes to attend. [HON MEMBERS: "And the Press?"] I will invite the Press. I find it quite impossible to deal adequately with this question by question and answer. If Parliamentary time will be afforded for Debate I shall be very glad to take that course, but as an alternative I suggest the meeting upstairs.

Sir N. GRIFFITHS: Is not the Coal Bill being introduced into the House on that afternoon?

Sir E. GEDDES: If that is not a convenient day I shall be delighted to change it.

Sir N. GRIFFITHS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that this matter should be dealt with as quickly as possible, as the present state of transport throughout the country is deplorable?

Mr. HOUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange the meeting for this afternoon?

Sir E. GEDDES: I cannot arrange it for this afternoon. If Thursday is not convenient, would Friday be more convenient?

HON. MEMBERS: No; Wednesday.

Mr. TERRELL: Considering the great importance of this matter, would it not be better for the right hon. Gentleman first to issue a statement as to the Government's proposals regarding wagons? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is very difficult for hon. Members to arrive at any conclusion until they have had a definite statement as to what the Government think is desirable to be done?

Sir E. GEDDES: I shall be very glad to consider that when we meet hon. Members upstairs. I doubt whether a statement of that kind would be as useful as the statement I propose to make verbally upstairs. Perhaps my hon. Friend will await that. I will do anything else I possibly can to meet the situation.

MOTOR LORRIES, SLOUGH.

Mr. DOYLE: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport how many motor lorries there were at Slough and how many have been sold; what steps, if any, are being taken to relieve the congested docks and railways by road transport; if the Depart-
ment is organising any other methods of transport; and, if so, under what conditions?

Sir E. GEDDES: I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to an identical question asked by him on 1st December.

Mr. DOYLE: On a point of Order. May I say that the question to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was on the Paper on that date, but was not answered?

Sir E. GEDDES: I regret very much if that is so, and I will look into it.

WAITING-ROOM FIRES, MORPETH AREA.

Mr. CAIRNS: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that in the waiting-rooms of the North Eastern Railway Company in the Morpeth area there are no fires; and, if so, will he see that during the winter months, in the interest of the public health, fires are made, as the public have to wait over an hour sometimes?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am in communication with the railway company on this matter, but, as the hon. Member is aware, strict economy in coal consumption is still desirable in the national interest.

RAILWAY STRIKE (MELTON CONSTABLE CASE).

Mr. WATERSON: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in connection with the railway settlement, he is aware that Mr. C. E. Barrett, head draughtsman in the engineers department of the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway, at Melton Constable, who declined to act as a signalman during the railway strike, and who was summarily dismissed for that action on 30th September, but was ultimately reinstated on 7th October, two days after the strike was settled, has been wrongfully deprived of his salary, amounting to £2 13s. 4d., for the period in question, and has since been boycotted by the engineer and traffic manager and superseded as head draughtsman by a man of less service in the same office, who acted as a guard during the strike and who is now designated engineering assistant; whether he will give instructions for Mr. Barrett to be restored to his full former status in the office and for the portion of his salary that has been wrongfully withheld paid to him; and that no further attempt shall be made to victimise him for declining to act against his fellow workmen during the recent strike?

Sir E. GEDDES: My attention has already been called to this case. Inquiries are being made.

RAILWAYMEN'S WAGES (STANDARDISATION).

Mr. FORREST: 42.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the slow progress of the negotiations with the railwaymen on the subject of the standardisation of wages, he will take an early opportunity of placing before the public the two points of view; and whether, in any case, he will take steps to avoid a sudden strike being declared without due and adequate warning to the community as a whole?

Sir E. GEDDES: I must refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough last Thursday.

RAILWAY FACILITIES, NOTTINGHAM.

Mr. ATKEY: 43.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that when the Midland Railway station was rebuilt about sixteen years ago the principal entrance was removed from Station Street, near Trent Street, to Carrington Street, and that, in order to provide for the public demand and convenience, a special entrance and bridge giving direct access to all platforms was specially constructed, the use of which was uninterruptedly enjoyed until February, 1917; that the reason for closing this entrance was the shortage of men due to the War, and that it was understood the convenience would be restored upon the return of the men, and that there is no justification in the minds of anyone beyond the Midland Railway officials for denying to thousands of the travelling public the right of way they have always enjoyed without interruption; and will he again call upon the Midland Railway Company to reopen this closed exit, as their refusal to accede to his previous request has intensified the feelings of local irritation and ill-feeling?

Sir E. GEDDES: So far as I am aware the statements in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question are correct, but as he was informed in reply to a question on this subject asked on the 1st July last, the closing of the entrance referred to was not a War measure, but was consequential upon an alteration in the arrangements at Nottingham station with a view to restricting the use of the platforms to ticket solders. I am not prepared to take the action suggested in the last part of the question, and I have not requested the Midland Railway in the sense suggested.

Mr. ATKEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in response to a request signed by a thousand ticket holders at the time it was closed the explanation was given that it was a war measure, and they were appealed to to be patient until Peace returned; and is he aware that the inspector of the Board of Trade who went to the station in order to advise the Ministry visited it at a time when he was not able to judge either of the danger or inconvenience to the public; and is he further aware that I am daily receiving complaints as to this matter?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question of which the hon. Gentleman should give notice.

Mr. ATKEY: May I point out that I have asked these questions on two or three previous occasions and the Minister has given no reply to them?

Mr. SPEAKER: He has always given a reply and it has always been in the negative.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 44.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that goods are now being collected by motor lorry from Nottingham station, taken to Basford some three miles away, and then delivered thence by dray back into Nottingham, in many cases passing the doors of the addressees on their journey to Basford; and whether he proposes to take any steps to deal with this matter?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am having inquiries made into this matter.

WEEK-END TICKETS (Ex-SERVICE MEN).

Captain BOWYER: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make arrangements to grant facilities to ex-Service men who, owing to the shortage of houses, are compelled to travel by train to their work and who live away from their homes, such as will enable them to obtain week-end tickets at cheaper rates?

Sir E. GEDDES: In the present financial position, I am unable to extend facilities for cheap week-end travel, and I regret that I should not feel justified in making an exception in the case mentioned.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROFITEERTNG (GROSS PROFITS).

Mr. SWAN: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will issue a
statement showing the basis of gross profit taken by representative profiteering committees as justifiable, and showing whether the gross profits allowed are based on the wholesale price of the articles when bought by the retailer or on the current wholesale price when sold by the retailer?

Sir A. GEDDES: The circumstances and facts vary so greatly in different cases that I do nut think any useful statement of this kind can be drawn up.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYALTIES SYNDICATE.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the attention of the Board had been drawn to the fact that a company called the Royalties Syndicate had year after year since 1914 included in its annual summary a statement in the form of a balance-sheet made up to 30th September, 1913; whether the Comptroller of the Companies Department, in a letter dated 23rd August, 1919, informed a debenture holder of the company that this filing of the same balance-sheet each year appeared to comply with Section 26 (3) of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908; whether the opinion of the Law Officers had been obtained on this point; and, if they agreed with the Comptroller, whether steps would be taken to amend the Act so that it would no longer be possible for a company to frustrate the intention of the Legislature with regard to the disclosure of its financial position from year to year?

Sir A. GEDDES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In the year 1909, the Board of Trade obtained a legal opinion, and the letter referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend was in accordance with that opinion. In the event of legislation being introduced to amend the Companies Acts, the question of amending the law on this point will receive consideration.

Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it necessary that steps should immediately be taken to amend the law in this way? Is he aware that the law was passed in order that the public and shareholders might know the position of the companies year by year? Can they do so under these circumstances?

Sir A. GEDDES: No Sir. I agree that this is a very serious blemish on the law,
but obviously we cannot introduce a Bill at this moment to deal with this particular point. There are several other points in connection with these laws which, I think, will require attention at an early date. We shall try to do it all together.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask whether steps will be taken in the new Session to introduce a Bill in order to do away with such an injustice?

Sir A. GEDDES: I could not give a binding and formal undertaking. I hope so; I will do my best.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEE.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister when His Majesty's Government expects to reach a decision with reference to the old age pensioners who are suffering severely from the high cost of living?

Mr. T. THOMSON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if the Government can see their way to promptly carry through legislation giving effect to the recommendation of the Old Age Pensions Committee, so that the hardships many pensioners are suffering may be relieved before the winter arrives?

Major BREESE: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the unanimous recommendation of the Commission on Old Age Pensions that Poor Law relief shall not be deemed a disqualification for such pensions, the Government will give effect to this recommendation at the earliest possible moment, so as to obviate suffering during this winter period amongst old people owing to the high cost of the necessaries of life?

Mr. F. ROBERTS: 52.
asked the Prime Minister what action the Government proposes to take with regard to the Report of the Select Committee on Old Age Pensions; and whether, in view of the need for increased allowance, steps can be taken to ensure immediate action?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The Cabinet have already given most careful consideration to this subject and to the recommendations of the Committee. The proposals involve such a large additional expenditure, carrying with it, of course, additional taxation, that the
Government are not yet in a position to place their proposals before the House of Commons, but the examination of the subject is being continued by a Cabinet, Committee from day to day, and I hope that I shall be able to announce the decision of the Government before the House rises.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether some emergency grant could not be given for the coming winter?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Administratively that would be impossible. I think the House must be satisfied with what I said. We are going into it most closely, but we must take into account, as the House will have to do, the effect of what will be done.

Mr. HOLMES: Is it not the fact that the half-crown extra given during the War was given administratively and not by legislative Act?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes. I do not think there was any other way of doing it then, but it was a very bad way, because there was no differentiation between the necessities of different cases.

Mr. HOLMES: If you give another half-crown wrongly now, would not the two wrongs make a right?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No; the two wrongs would make a double wrong.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment to-night.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATY.

ALBANIA.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister when a decision is expected as to the future of Albania; whether it is intended to guarantee the independence of that country as agreed to in the Treaty of London, 1913; and whether there is any British military force, British military mission, or British political mission in Albania?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am unable to state when a decision will be taken with regard to Albania. This must depend upon the decisions of the Peace Conference. It is not correct to say that the independence of Albania was agreed to in the Treaty of London of 30th May, 1913. The reply to
the last part of the question is that there is at present a small British Mission at Scutari.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: If Albania is not recognised as independent, what is it? Is it part of the ex-Austrian Empire, or the ex-Ottoman Empire, or part of Serbia, or part of Greece?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I should not like to answer that, but it is one of the subjects which the Peace Conference is considering.

Captain REDMOND: If it is to consider Albania, why not Ireland?

BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 50.
asked the Prime Minister why, in view of the fact that the work of the Paris Peace Conference is still incomplete and that there are in many important decisions still to be taken, there is no British Minister of Cabinet rank now in Paris?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The best method for the continuation of the Peace Conference at Paris was carefully considered by the Cabinet, and the existing arrangement was in consequence decided upon.

ROUMANIA.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the memorial addressed by the Roman Catholic, the Unitarian, and the Calvinistic bishops of Koloozvar to the Peace Conference on 8th September last, complaining of the treatment meted out to their respective co-religionists by the Roumanians; and whether any action was taken to remedy the state of affairs so disclosed?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My attention has been called to the memorial addressed to the Peace Conference, who are taking such steps as may be possible for the protection of religious and racial minorities in Transylvania.

Lord R. CECIL: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to lay before the House any information on this and kindred subjects, so that the House can really form an opinion on these grave incidents which are occurring all over Europe?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It would not be possible to make any statement at present
about the negotiations with Roumania. My Noble Friend knows the exact position in which they stand.

Lord R. CECIL: I think my right hon. Friend misunderstood my question. did not ask for information as to the negotiations, though I should be very glad if it were possible to give it, but as to the actual facts, as to the, condition prevailing in these various countries. I have reason to know the Government have a great deal of information about it.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I will consider what my Noble Friend has said.

Sir P. MAGNUS: May I ask whether any Mission has been sent to Roumania from this country to inquire into these matters?

Mr. BONA.R LAW: I should like to, have notice of that.

GERMAN RATIFICATION.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN (by Private Notice): asked the Leader of the House if he could give the House any information as to the relations between the Allies and Germany, some intimation of which recently appeared in the daily Press?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is the fact that communications are taking place between the Allied and the Associated Governments and the German Government with a view to the immediate ratification of Peace. I have little reason to doubt that these communications will have a satisfactory issue.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (HOHENZOLLERNS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the activities of the Monarchist party, in Germany, the Allies in general, and this country in particular, have made it quite clear, or will make it quite clear, that no restoration of the Hohenzollern family will be recognised?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The present German Constitution provides that the German State shall be a Republic, and the restoration of the Hohenzollern family to power is therefore excluded. If, after peace has been restored, the German people revise their Constitution, the attitude of His Majesty's Government will have to be considered in consultation with the Allies.

Oral Answers to Questions — STANDING ORDERS (BILLS SUSPENDED).

Mr. EVELYN CECIL: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of any precedent for suspending the Standing Orders of this House and resuming in a following Session any Public Bill of the previous Session, except the case of the Port of London Bill in 1903, which was not, in fact, proceeded with in 1904?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of any precedent except that stated in the question.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether the proposed carrying over of Bills to next Session will only apply in the case of measures specially named and will not be effected under the operation of a new Standing Order to make a change in the general constitutional law; and, if so, to what particular Bills it is proposed to apply such special order?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not yet in a position to state the exact form in which Parliament will be invited to carry out the proposal of the Government, but I hope to be able to do so in a few days.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Can the Government so frame the Motion in which they propose this change as to ensure that it will only be of a temporary nature?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We are now having our proposal drafted, and that is being kept in view in connection with it.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Can he state the Bills which it is proposed to carry over, and amongst those Bills will there be the Imports and Exports Regulation Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I said I hope in a few days to be able to state exactly what the proposals of the Government are.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RENTS (ILLEGAL INCREASE).

Mr. LUNN: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the number of cases in which landlords are raising rents of dwelling-houses illegally; and whether, in order to put a stop to such action, which is often successful owing to the ignorance of tenants, he will introduce a Bill imposing a heavy penalty, including imprisonment, for any attempt to raise rents illegally?

The PAYMASTER -GENERAL (Sir Tudor Walters—for Dr. Addison): My right hon. Friend has no information that tenants are paying increases in rents which are not authorised by the increase of rent, etc., Acts. If, however, such payments are made, the amount of the increase can at any time, within six months after payment, be recovered by the tenant by deducting the amount from subsequent payments of rent.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR RAIDS (COMPENSATION).

Captain MARTIN: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can offer any hope of compensation for injuries to person or property of civilians caused by air raids?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Treaty with Germany provides that compensation may be claimed from Germany in respect of damage to injured persons and to surviving dependants by personal injury to or death of civilians caused by attacks from the air, arid in respect of damage to property of civilians injured or destroyed by the acts of Germany or her Allies from the air. Claims, if not already furnished to the Foreign Claims Office, should be sent to the Board of Trade. I am not, of course, in a position to say how much will be recovered from Germany in respect of them.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the person who makes the claim get paid anything if Germany does not carry out her obligations to pay?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.

Mr. RAWLINSON: When is it expected Germany will make the first payment on account?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have answered practically the same question two or three times. Payment by Germany cannot he received until after the Reparation Commission has got effectively to work, and the Reparation Commission cannot get to work until after the Treaty has been ratified.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMANDEERED PROPERTY (COUNTY RATES).

Captain BOWYER: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will pay an equitable contribution towards the
county rate in respect of properties in any county taken over by the Government for war emergency purposes; whether in such cases, if any, where the Government intend to occupy such properties permanently, he will cause valutions to be made of the improved values of such properties; and whether, in these cases, he will make contributions in lieu of rates based upon such valuation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Government contribute to local rates, including the county rate, in respect of properties taken over for war emergency purposes on the principle that local authorities are to be placed in no worse, and in no better, position than they would have been in had the Government occupation not taken place. The contributions are therefore given on bases which exclude the new temporary buildings erected by the Government on the properties affected. Where the Government intend to occupy such properties permanently, valuations will be made taking into consideration the improvements made upon the land, and contributions in lieu of rates will subsequently be given on the basis of the improved values.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that on the 25th, 26th, and 27th November the House rose at 9.40 p.m., 5.25 p.m., and 6.58 p.m., respectively, and that on the other hand the greater part of the Government of India Bill was taken in Committee between 11 p.m. on the 4th and I a.m. on the 5th December; and whether, by a more careful arrangement of the work of the House, such important Bills can in future be considered at an earlier hour when the House is better able to afford them proper consideration?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, the discussion on the Government of India Bill was interrupted by the Motion for the Adjournment being granted for 8.15 p.m. on the same day, which was not part of the Government programme of business. But for this interruption, no doubt the Committee stage would have been completed by 11 p.m.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

Earl WINTERTON: 65.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that, despite the promise of protection given to them on behalf of the High Commission in Egypt at the time of the trial, the majority of the witnesses for the prosecution in the trial of divers persons for the murder of British officers and men at Assiut in March have themselves been murdered; and if he is aware of the grave injury to British prestige which these fresh murders have caused?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): His Majesty's Government have no official information as to witnesses for the prosecution in the Deirout train murders trial having been murdered, but inquiry is being made. The answer to the latter part of the Noble Lord's question is in the negative.

Earl WINTERTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have positive information from a high source in Egypt that these men have been murdered, and in view of this very serious matter will he expedite inquiries, and will be telegraph out?

Mr. HARMSWOFITH: Yes, and I shall be glad if my Noble Friend will put me on the track of that information.

Earl WINTERTON: I will.

The Noble Lord: 66.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many cases have occurred since 1st May last in which officers and men of the British Force in Egypt have been assaulted and fired at when not on duty; in how many cases the officers and men have been killed or wounded; and how many arrests for these outrages have been made?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I have been asked to reply. From 1st May, 1919, to 1st November, 1919, no cases of assault on. British troops when not on duty were reported, but since this latter date British officers or soldiers have been assaulted or fired at on six occasions. The total casualties were one officer killed and three men wounded. No arrests have been made for these outrages, as the assailants escaped in each case.

Earl WINTERTON: Can my right hon. Friend give a denial to the statements that have appeared that there have been
frequent assaults upon soldiers, who have been fired on by the mobs when off duty, between the months of May and November; will he deny those statements which have appeared in the Press?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I had not that part of the subject in my mind. I am dealing only with assaults on British troops when not on duty.

Earl WINTERTON: Could he say if it is a fact that the men, when off duty, have been assaulted between May and November, frequently, by the mob, and has he no official report on the subject?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Assaulted and fired on?

Earl WINTERTON: No, assaulted.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The question has been interpreted in the sense of an assault with firearms. If my Noble Friend would like an answer with regard to the number of assaults made without firearms I will make inquiries about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

SOVIET GOVERNMENT.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 67.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Nathan, who has accompanied the hon. Member for South-East Leeds to Copenhagen to assist in the conference with the representatives of the Russian Soviet Government, is a Jew or of Jewish, extraction; whether he is a Zionist or an anti-Zionist; and whether any of these factors were taken into consideration when selecting Mr. Nathan as a delegate for this conference?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I understand that Mr. Nathan is of Jewish extraction. I have no information regarding his religious or political views, neither of which factors were taken into consideration when he was selected to accompany the hon. Member for South-East Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) to Copenhagen.

AGRICULTURE.

FERTILISERS.

Sir N. GRIFFITHS: 69.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agri-
culture what quantity of the following fertilisers: sulphate of ammonia, ground basic slag, and superphosphates, is at present imported from Germany, the cost to the British Government of such importation, and the present retail price of such fertilisers?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I will circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the reply:

I am informed that no sulphate of ammonia, ground basic slag or superphosphate is being imported from Germany. The present maximum prices of the respective fertilisers are:

Sulphate of Ammonia.—For sale in lots of not less than 2 tons for delivery by rail or water to purchaser's nearest railway station or wharf in Great Britain, less a trade discount to agricultural merchants, dealers and co-operative societies.

Month of Delivery.
Price per Ton in bags, net Cash.



£
s.
d.


December, 1919
21
0
0


January, 1920
21
7
6


February
21
15
0


March, April and May
22
0
0

Basic Slag.—The maximum prices range from 62s. per ton for slag containing 12 to 14 per cent. total phosphates to 102s. per ton for slags containing 42 to 44 per cent. total phosphates. The prices include delivery in makers' bags to purchaser's nearest station or wharf for minimum lots of 4 tons.

In the case of both sulphate of ammonia and basic slag the prices given include, in deliveries to Ireland, Isle of Man or Channel Islands, delivery f.o.b. port in Great Britain.

Superphosphate.—Owing to the varying cost of importing phosphate rock it has not been possible to arrange for superphosphate to be sold at a uniform delivered price. During the 1918–19 season phosphate rock and other materials were sold to superphosphate makers by the Government at less than market prices. This assistance has been discontinued. The present quotations for 30 per cent. superphosphate are from £7 5s. to £7 7s. 6d. per ton free on rail.

Sir N. GRIFFITHS: 70.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of
Agriculture what, if ally, profit the Government are making per ton on basic slag now being sold at fixed prices ranging from 62s. per ton for 12 per cent. up to 102s. per ton for 42 per cent. of total phosphates; and will he state what proportion, if any, of such basic slag is made up out of material obtained from Germany?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No basic slag is sold by the Government, nor do they profit by the sales made by makers. As regards the latter part of the question, I am informed that no raw slag is being obtained from Germany.

Sir N. GRIFFITHS: 71.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the trade are unable to accept orders for a quality of basic slag over 22 per cent., and that even this quality is only obtainable after considerable delay; and what steps he proposes to take in this matter in view of the serious effect such delay will have on next year's crops?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I must refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave on the 2nd inst. in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Monmouth.

HOPS (AREA UNDER CULTIVATION).

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: 72.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, under the Defence of the Realm Act., the acreage under hops has been reduced from about 36,000 to about 16,000 acres; what is the price at which English hops of the 1919 crop are now being sold, and what is the price at which imported foreign hops of similar quality are being sold in this country; and whether, in view of these figures, the Government contemplate any special legislation to protect the cultivation of hops in this country?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The area under hops was reduced under the Defence of the Realm Act from 31,352 acres in 1916 to 15,666 acres in 1918. The area this year is 16,748 acres. Trading in English hops of the 1919 crop has not yet commenced, and the Hop Control Committee have no information as to the prices at which imported hops are being sold in this country. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to Section 9 (1) (d) of the Imports and Exports Regulation Bill which is at present before the House.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has the hon. Gentleman no information whatever about the sale of hops of the 1919 crop?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am aware that an average price is being paid by the Hop Control Committee of £18 5s. a cwt. They are now busy grading the crop, and I cannot say at what price any quality is being sold.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that English hops of the 1919 crop are being sold at a considerably lower price than imported hops?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No; my information is exactly the contrary.

FLAX.

Major COURTHOPE: 73.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Board propose to contract with farmers for the growing of flax next year, in view of the fact that the Board's flax undertaking is advertised for sale; and, if so, on what terms?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: In order to preserve the goodwill of the Board's flax factories and their products (whether the factories are in future carried on by the Board or by private enterprise), the Board propose to contract, if possible, for 5,000 acres of flax to be grown in 1920. The price offered will be £13 per ton, with a possible bonus of per ton at the Board's discretion, for flax of exceptionally high quality, seed to be provided free. Purchasers of the factories will be required to take over these contracts, as indicated in the advertisements which have appeared.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Major COURTHOPE: 74.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture what steps, if any, the Board is taking to carry out the agricultural policy outlined by the Prime Minister in his speech at the Caxton Hall on 21st October last?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: A Bill is being drafted by the Board to carry out generally the agricultural policy outlined by the Prime Minister, but I am not in a position to give details at the present moment. As stated by the Prime Minister, the Bill will be introduced early next Session.

SURPLUS GOVERNMENT STORES.

Brigadier-General CROFT: 75.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry
of Munitions whether motor lorries and other stores are being withheld from sale in spite of the fact that offers of purchase have been made approximating to the market value; and whether, owing to the unbusinesslike methods, prolonged delays, and. lack of cohesion between the controllers and the different Departments, customers are frequently compelled to purchase similar supplies from private firms, which firms in turn may have previously bought from the Disposal Board?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): No motor lorries or other stores, which are available for disposal, are being withheld from sale, neither is any offer refused which approximates to the market value of such stores. Supplies purchased from the Disposal Board are frequently placed upon the retail market. It is not desirable or practicable for the Disposal Board themselves to sell stores by retail.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Will it be possible for the hon. Gentleman to arrange more frequent sales in every part of the country, instead of once a month, to get rid of supplies?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I think the sales are being held now as rapidly as the market is capable of absorbing supplies.

Brigadier-General CROFT: 76.
asked what is the total number of persons engaged under the Disposal Board; and what is the total cost of the Department?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The total number of persons employed under the Disposal Board, at home and abroad, is now 1,992, including a military establishment in France of 479 persons whose services are loaned to the Ministry by the War Office in connection with the work of disposals. The annual cost in salaries of this staff is, approximately, £557,000.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many members of this staff are in the position of controllers?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I cannot say offhand, but I will give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the information.

Brigadier-General CROFT: 77.
asked what is the total value of surplus stores disposed of during the last six months?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The total value of surplus stores disposed of during the six
months ended 31st October, so far as the figures have come to hand, is, approximately, £67,000,000.

OUTRAGES IN IRELAND.

MOTOR PERMIT ORDER.

Captain REDMOND (by Private Notice): asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the commercial and industrial transport of Ireland is at a. standstill, as a result of the Motor Permit Order, and what action he intends to take to remove this serious menace to Irish trade?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Macpherson): I am not aware that the facts are as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend. In any case, I do not propose to withdraw the Order.

Captain REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the original purport and purpose of this Order, and if any useful purpose is being brought about now by the continuance of the exceedingly aggravating, unconstitutional, and undemocratic practice?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The Order does not inflict any hardship upon any loyalist in Ireland. It is a well-known fact that in almost every outrage of a serious kind in Ireland during recent months motor cars have been used. All that I ask of loyal Irishmen is to submit to the taking out of a permit, and, as I have said, I do not think there is any hardship whatever, and I refuse to withdraw it.

Captain REDMOND: Is it not a fact that in all quarters of Ireland, and among alt sections and classes of the people of Ireland, this Order is detested—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—that the Motor Operatives Union, which is not a political union, but a trade union pure and simple, has declared against it; that great industrial and commercial concerns have been almost brought to the stage of having to close down their factories; and is this not a serious menace to Irish trade? I further ask whether a single Irish outrage—which no one deplores and detests more than I do myself, and those associated with me—will be prevented or stopped by this iniquitous and aggravating Order?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Obviously the object of the Order is to prevent such
outrages, and I am convinced, in my own mind, this Order will be most beneficial, and all my advisers think so, too. Needless to say, I did not issue this Order so that it might be vexatious to the Irish people—far from it. I thought then, and I think still, that any man who has really the interests of peace and law and order in Ireland at heart will be only too glad to abide by the Order, because it is one of the measures which the Government is bound to take to preserve the peace of the country and the lives of loyal subjects.

Captain REDMOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the fact I have stated that this great mechanics' trade union in Ireland has struck against it, and does he deny that motor transport is held up all over Ireland at the present time? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] I Does he seriously consider that the issue of this aggravating Order is going to stop a single outrage in Ireland, or is he really going out of his way to prepare that peaceful atmosphere for the wonderful settlement he is going to bring about as a Christmas pantomime?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I think I have already answered this question.

Captain REDMOND: Not about this.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I did take the trouble to see a deputation of the motor trade union. I listened to them patiently and the chairman of the Labour party for two hours, and they were not able to advance a single argument except one, and that was that they objected to any restrictions being placed upon them by an alien Government.

Captain REDMOND: Is it not a fact?

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ESTIMATES).

Sir D. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House as to the day when it will be convenient for him or the Minister responsible to lay the revised Estimates in regard to the expenditure on the Army and Air Force?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that the Estimates will be laid immediately. We quite expect that opportunity for their discussion will be found some day next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE. 1919–20).

Estimate presented of the further Suns required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March. 1920 [by Command]; referred to a Standing Committee, and to be printed. [No. 224.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Pensions Funds (Cardiff) Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNION OF BENEFICES BILL [Lords].

Read the first time: to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 235.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered, "That the proceedings on Government business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)." —[Bonar Law.]

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (WAR ADDITION) AMENDMENT BILL.

Order [5th December] for committing the Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Amendment Bill to a Standing Committee read, and discharged.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Shortt.]

HOUSING (ADDITIONAL POWERS) [EXPENSES].

Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of Expenses incurred under any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the better housing of the people, to authorise the acquisition of land for the development of garden cities or for the purposes of town planning schemes, and to make further provision with respect to the borrowing powers of public authorities and bodies and with respect to the securities issued by them—(King's Recommendation signified—To-morrow—[Mr. Baldwin]

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIR- MEN'S PANEL).

Sir SAMUEL. ROBERTS reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Macmaster to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A in respect of the Public Libraries Bill.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COM- MITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Major David Davies, Mr. Grattan Doyle, Brigadier-General Hickman, and Colonel Penry Williams; and had added the following Members (for the consideration of the Public Libraries Bill): Mr. Campbell and Mr. Royce.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added lo Standing Committee. A the following Thirteen Members (in respect of the Public Libraries Bill): Mr. Bird, Mr. James Brown, Mr. Rei Carter, Sir Martin Conway, Mr. Alfred Davies, Mr. Hogge, Sir Evan Jones, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Mr. John Murray, Mr. John Parkinson, Colonel Sir Alexander Sprot, Mr. Thomas-Stanford, and Lieut.-Commander Young.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Nurses Registration (No. 2) Bill): Dr. Addison, Major Barnett, Sir Watson Cheyne, Captain Elliot, Colonel Greig, Mr. Grundy, Mr. Hayday, Sir Philip Magnus, Sir Philip Pilditch, Lieut.-Colonel Raw, Mr. Robert Richardson, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, Sir William Whitla, and Colonel Penry Williams.

That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Major Farquharson and Sir Kingsley Wood; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Carr and Major Steel.

That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Haslam; and had added the following
Member (in respect of the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Bill): Mr. Edward Kelly.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The House will not, I suppose, desire me to-day to repeat the general review of this Bill which I gave a fortnight last Friday. I, therefore, will direct myself at once to the contents of this Bill, many of which were indicated in outline by me on the occasion of the Debate to which I have just referred. There is one proposal in the Bill which has given rise to some hostile criticism; that is the one in which we propose to make grants in aid of building by private persons or private builders. There seems to be an impression in sonic quarters that somehow or other the building of houses has been delayed by some control or other of the building trade. That is entirely inaccurate. There is no reason, apart from economic reasons, why men, if they were so disposed, should not build houses. There has been no control of the building trade, and I sincerely hope it will not be necessary to propose it. The position which at the end of the War made it out of the question for the private person to build houses as a business proposition was that the cost of building then was so great that he could not see a reasonable chance of his being able to get an economic return in the shape of a sufficient rent. That was the reason that prevented men building houses at the end of the War. That is still the reason.
4.0 P.M.
At the end of the War men were naturally hesitant. Now, so far from there being any hesitancy as to there being work for the building trade, the state of affairs is exactly this contrary. There is an abundance of attractive and remunerative work of another kind. This new factor is added to the one which has existed throughout that it was not a paying proposition to build houses as a private speculation. I would remind the House that this phenomenon is not limited to this country. It exists, I believe, in every European country at present, and in most of them it is worse than here. Therefore, it was necessary for us, in proposing the Bill to Parliament earlier in the year. to
make it a duty of some authority or other to see to the provision of houses. Notwithstanding all that has passed since then, I have still to find any critic who has ever suggested that, when we came to deal with housing, we should impose a public duty upon the unnamed private individual. Therefore, we have to make that provision of housing, which is a most urgent need, a public duty. It is true that it is a duty which might be discharged in one of three ways. The State itself could directly undertake the wholesale building of houses. That is a provision which was not submitted to Parliament, and I think anyone who has studied the matter five minutes will recognise why not. In the first place, it would have prevented business expansion and every form of legitimate and necessary enterprise, and the restoration of the normal working of trade. It would have meant, also, that you would inevitably have had to rely upon private agents for all manner of services, for the acquisition of sites, etc., and then, at the end, you would have found a very undesirable state of affairs—the State itself engaging in the business of a rent collector. Some of our critics have suggested we should have gone to that length. I do not think this House would have sanctioned it. For my part, I think it would have been very unfortunate if it had been proposed. Private building, for the reasons I have said, was not then, and is not now in a position to build, as a business proposition, to meet the existing need. Therefore we have had to look to the great local authorities, with State aid behind them, to meet the need. In the Housing Act many provisions are made to enable us to call to our assistance private enterprise.
Although I am not going over the arguments again, I wish to say that I still am satisfied that the great scheme which three-quarters of the local authorities have worked out and are engaged upon will abundantly justify the methods which were adopted. The actual delay, after the acquisition of land and the provision of plans, in building has had very disastrous results, and it is that difficulty which we are seeking to remove. The two main causes of delay are the high cost and the other attractions for men in the building trade. There is plenty of alternative work available. We must have the houses, and we must either have them by some agreement entered into with the building trade or by
some system of control. I prefer to adopt the line of agreement, and, I think, before coming to the particular proposals of the Bill it is material to that proposal to observe how the present arrangements are working. In the first months of the scheme time has been spent in acquiring land and making the plans. During the past two months we have reached an agreement with the whole building trade. The Joint Industrial Council of that trade, to which we are immensely indebted, has set up a parallel organisation with ours as a result of which, in the great centres of the country, we have now formulated a programme, and the builders in the federation or builders in the locality who are not in the federation are being brought together on the understanding that they will share amongst them, in addition to whatever other work they have on hand, a minimum number of houses for the local authority as a part of the housing scheme. Several of my hon. Friends in this House are good enough regularly to help me in holding these conferences with federated builders and others concerned, and the latest agreement of all reached on Friday evening under this arrangement was with the federated builders in the City of Birmingham, where they have, at an agreed price, decided that, notwithstanding any other work, that they will complete 1,500 houses within a given time shared out among themselves.
This part of the programme is making good headway, but it is evident that, whilst there are many builders who can put in a precise tender, by none of these methods can you secure the aid of all who can help, and we want the aid of everybody at the present time. It is in order to bring in the assistance of those who cannot come in under the precise terms you must impose for the provision of publicly owned property, and all those who can help, that these additional proposals have been found necessary.
This House, I am sure, has no liking for proposals which mean the granting of public money to a private individual. That clearly is not generally acceptable to our practice, but the criticism which is sometimes made of this proposal is that it is a gift to a builder, and that he would be able to profiteer in the house thereafter on that account. It is a criticism based on a misunderstanding of the present position. If it paid a man to build houses now and he had a good market for them at a profit-
able rate they would now be building them, but the fact is they are not, and the reason is that there is no market for them at the cost they would entail. This proposal is to enable a man to build a house of a satisfactory kind for which he will be able to find a market by virtue of the fact that he has been able to build it by these means at a less cost to himself than would otherwise be the case. It is clear that is essential if you are to bring him to our assistance to relieve the present great shortage of houses and to bring in the private individual and the private builder who are prepared to spend money upon building houses. The House will have noticed if hon. Members have seen the White Paper which I caused to be circulated the other day dealing with this matter that there is in that Paper some little departure from the proposals which I outlined to the House a few days ago. At that time, as far as we had examined the details of administration of such grants, we proposed that there should be a fixed sum per house, and that it should be a maximum of £150. Since then we have examined this proposal in great detail with the aid of those competent to advise us, and we have decided to propose that the subject should be dealt with on the lines indicated in the White Paper. It will there be seen that whilst the total sum devoted to the subsidy is to be limited to the amount mentioned by me some days ago, if you had a flat rate in the subsidy you are going to place a premium upon the provision of a certain type of house.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the White Paper was only available at the Vote Office a couple of hours ago, although the Bill itself was sent round on Saturday morning or Friday night? Why could not the Financial Paper have been sent round at the same time as the Bill

Dr. ADDISON: I passed the proof on Thursday evening last. I am sorry it has not been circulated sooner, and I regret that the delay has occurred. We tried to get it out on Friday. The proposals therein are that for a cottage containing a living room, a parlour and three or four bedrooms, and comprising not less than 920 feet superficial of floor area there will be a grant of £160. For the same type of house without a parlour £140, and for one with a bedroom less £130.

Mr. HOUSTON: What about a bathroom?

Dr. ADDISON: This fairly distributes the subsidy so as not unduly to give an advantage to any particular type of house, and it is so arranged that it will work out at an average of a little less than £150 per house. It is clearly desirable that some discrimination should be made, otherwise the whole subsidy may be used to provide a particular type of house. I suggest that the conditions attached ought to be made as simple as possible, otherwise it will be inoperative. The governing condition as to the number of houses per acre, which is simple and easily understood, is set out in the conditions. We have allowed in some cases even under the principal Act in urban areas up to as many as twenty houses per acre, although we have been very reluctant to go above twelve. It is clear that in this case you are dealing with land which has been already laid out. Therefore, much as we should like to limit the number to twelve houses per acre, you have to deal with facts as they are; and if we could, as I feel sure we shall, get a large number of houses under this scheme on partly developed land, it will be a vast improvement in our standards of housing; for we shall have a number not exceeding twenty to the acre rather than forty, or more closely packed together, as has been the ease in times past.
Then it is proposed that the construction should be in accordance with the local by-laws, but where we have relaxed local by-laws in respect of housing we have provided that those houses should have the advantage of such a relaxation as we are enabling local authorities themselves to have. They will, of course, be required to be houses well-constructed and properly finished; but I think it is clear that it will be quite unworkable in this form of building to have the detailed specifications, and so forth, which we require in the case of municipally-owned houses. Therefore we have left the subject of construction and lay-outs to the local authority, and we require them to give a certificate that the house is properly erected, fit for habitation, and has been completed in a proper and workmanlike manner.
It will be observed, and on this I dare say we shall be challenged, that we have made no conditions as to sale or
rent. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or time?"] Yes, we have as to time. I think this is a fundamental issue which we may face without any pretence. If we are to say that we will give you so many pounds to help you to build a house that you cannot afford to build at the present price, and and when you have built them you are only to let it to this and that person at this or that rent, you will not get any houses in response to your appeal and the scheme will be abortive. The House will remember that on many occasions I have said that it seems to me essential that we should press for the restoration in the building industry of house building on a self-supporting economic basis as soon as possible, and it is on that account that we have been perhaps somewhat more exacting in our Regulations with respect to rents than some of my hon. Friends perhaps thought we were entitled to be. But we take this course only and solely because one sees that we must take a stand on this, that, allowing for the additional war cost which we hope will pass on, you ought to be able to get a rent for a house which is an economic return for the money spent on it. That is a vital necessity at the present time. I am quite sure, if we are to get any material number of houses under this scheme, that we cannot set out by prescribing rents in advance and prescribing time tenants, and so forth. Otherwise, the thing will be nugatory from the start. We must aim at getting house building on to a self-supporting basis. I have said many times at meetings of labour delegates and others that I think a man ought to have sufficient wages to enable him to pay an economic rent for the house in which he lives, and it is not right to set out to subsidise wages by subsidising rents.

Mr. INSKIP: Will this Grant be made in respect of houses which have been already begun?

Dr. ADDISON: No; we cannot make it retrospective.

Captain BROWN: Is this Grant to be given to private builders or to anybody?

Dr. ADDISON: To anybody who builds a house in a satisfactory manner within the time specified.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: What do you call an economic rent?

Dr. ADDISON: I think that is sufficiently well understood. It depends upon the capital employed, upon the wear and tear of the house, and other things. Another important provision is that these houses must be begun within twelve months. There is a slight modification here, though a very small one, compared with what I said a few days ago. We contemplate that a certain number of houses may not be actually completed within the twelve months. I am afraid, if we were to say that everything must be finally settled and the house ready for occupation by a certain date twelve months hence, we should shut out a considerable number of houses which might otherwise be built in the summer months. Therefore, we have had to allow for a certain number of houses approaching completion, but not finally completed within the twelve months to a day, and consequently we propose to give three months' grace in respect of them, but to deduct one-twelfth of the subsidy in respect of each month beyond the twelve months. That is an equitable and simple way of dealing with the difficulty. The criticism is sometimes made, and I dare say it may be made to-day, that in view of the present high cost of building this subsidy is not enough. I find a great variety in the cost of building in the different areas, depending very much upon the proximity of the brickyards, the facilities for transport, and other circumstances of that kind. I may recall to the House some interesting figures given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) on Friday week, when he said that a number of houses had been built in his district, I think, for £520.

Mr. PRETYMAN: They were sold freehold at £500.

Dr. ADDISON: I have looked up a number of tenders which we have accepted for houses which are being built in the same district by the local authorities, in order to see how the prices compare. In the Isle of Ely houses are being built for £457 10s.

Sir G. YOUNGER: What accommodation is there?

Dr. ADDISON: Three bedrooms, living room, scullery, and bath-room.

Mr. PRETYMAN: Just the same kind of accommodation.

Dr. ADDISON: In Little Thurrock the cost is £576; in West Thurrock £596; in Docking, living-room, parlour, scullery, and three bedrooms, £586; in Cambridge, the same accommodation, £540; and in Wells-next-the-Sea, the same accommodation, for the surprisingly low amount of £421.

Mr. LORDEN: What accommodation?

Dr. ADDISON: Living room, scullery, parlour, and three bedrooms. It is abnormally low, but taking the others, it will be seen that they are all below £600, and are mostly in the neighbourhood of £550 or thereabouts, so that the price is not extravagant compared with that mentioned by my right Friend.

Sir G. YOUNGER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what material was used, because the same house in Scotland costs £800?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes—bricks.

Captain BROWN: Do those figures include construction of sewers and streets?

Dr. ADDISON: No; I think not.

Lord R. CECIL: Was it a contract?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes.

Lord R. CECIL: They are not complete.

Dr. ADDISON: They are being built, and that is the contract price.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite impossible to carry on the Debate on these lines.

Dr. ADDISON: These prices are for the actual building of the house, and do not include land, fences, drainage, and that kind of thing. The point is that in the same area the prices obtained by the local authorities are in the same region. The private builder can build more cheaply than the local authority. There is nothing either surprising or original in that observation. Clearly, he can build more cheaply than the local authority, because he has not to meet the same precise requirements as to details, specifications, and quantities; but as the Minister responsible for seeing that the local authorities build houses with public money, I have to make sure, as well as I can, that we get proper value for that money. You cannot, in the expenditure of public money, have the same lack of detail and careful specifications as a private individual will allow for himself. Therefore,
it is inevitable that local authorities' houses are more expensive. I would, however, point out that the houses which are being built are a great improvement on our former standard of houses. That is very necessary, and we do not propose to depart from it. Taking the figures that I have given and allowing that the private builder can in any case build 25 per cent. cheaper than the local authority in any given area, I think it will be found that, with the subsidy, it will be quite possible for a large number of private builders in such areas to build houses, and they ill certainly be able to get rid of them as a commercial proposition. There is proof of that in the offers now coming to us. Since Friday week we have had a large number of offers, I am glad to say, from public utility societies and other kindred bodies to build a largely increased number of houses under this proposal, and I have no doubt that a very large number of very good and well-planned houses will be obtained by these means. The justification for this subsidy is to be found in the necessity of the time. I do not base it upon anything else. That is the justification. In consequence of the unforeseen high costs which local authorities have experienced and the attractive work of building in other directions, it was necessary to supplement the scheme by this proposal.

Mr. HOUSTON: I have got the White Paper, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to explain paragraph b, which deals with the increased Grant for public utility societies. It. assumes 10,000 houses, and says the additional expenditure involved would be £100,000. This is only £10per house.

Dr. ADDISON: I have been dealing with building houses privately, which is referred to in the White Paper and also in the two first Clauses of the Bill. I now come to the point raised by my hon. Friend, which is the proposal relating to public utility societies. There have been already built a goodly number of houses by public utility societies on the experimental plan adopted in the early stages. Some of them have very big enterprises in front of them, but, they are nearly all, though not quite all, great employers of labour for great firms which must have the houses anyhow. They are iron companies, steel companies, engineering companies, and so forth. and they have frankly recognised that under the
existing terms for public utility societies they will get very little or no return on their share of the capital. It was evident that, in order to bring in the aid of public utility societies and to make the best use of them, we must, at any rate for the first few years, improve the terms to them. In Clause 4 of the Bill, therefore, we have provided for additional assistance to public utility societies. I need not go over the general provisions affecting the societies, because the House no doubt is familiar with them. The basis of the existing scheme is that the Exchequer—the Public Works Loan Commissioners—find 75 per cent. of the. capital and 4 per cent towards the loan charges spread over the Whole scheme. Thus we find 30 per cent. of the loan charges of the whole of the capital involved in the scheme. That has not been enough except where necessity has driven a firm or induced public utility societies to build. It is proposed, as the result of discussion with those who are interested in public utility societies, that for the first seven years the grant to the loan charges shall be 50 per cent., and thereafter 30 per cent. as is the case in the existing scheme. The proposal is, therefore, that till 1927 we shall increase the grants for loan charges to public utility societies to 50 per cent., thereafter continuing it at 30 per cent.
Another proposal which I am sure is an essential part of the scheme, in view of the immense attractions for the building trade in other directions, is the provision in Clause 5 that the local authority shall have power to prohibit unessential building. I do trot think myself it will be found that a. very material percentage of building labour and materials is in fact employed on luxury building, but the social and political effect of people every day seeing masses of labour employed on buildings which are luxuries and unnecessary, while they themselves are wanting fresh houses, is a circumstance we must take account of. In some districts this kind of building has interfered with and is very materially interfering with house budding, and I have several cases in mind where a person who wants to put up an extravagant building at a large cost has offered 2d. and 3d. per hour more for building labour than the rate current in the district. We know of a ease where the number of bricklayers employed on one housing scheme went down from 162 to forty-two, simply because there was another building going on on adjacent land
where they were giving 2d. more than the district rate, and if they had been unable to get labour at that they would have been prepared to go still higher. This kind of thing is socially and morally wrong, and I do not think myself it will have any support from responsible people in any section of the building trade. But the House will desire that n e shall avoid, and certainly I shall, as a result of war experience, avoid the setting up of a scheme, whereby everybody who desires a few bricks has to go to some Department or other for a licence. That was a thoroughly burdensome piece of administration, unsatisfactory to all concerned. We, therefore, propose in Clause 5, that where it appears to a local authority that the provision of dwelling accommodation within their area is or is likely to he delayed by a deficiency of labour or material arising out of the employment of labour or material in the construction of any works or dwellings, and that the construction of those works or dwellings is in the circumstances of the case of less public importance than the provision of dwelling accommodation, the authority may, by order, prohibit for such time and on such terms and subject to such conditions as the Minister may from time to time prescribe, and either in whole or in part, the construction of those works or buildings. It is provided also that any person aggrieved by an order made by a local authority under this Section may appeal to the Minister. We have to bear in mind the desirability that builders in every district should take upon themselves by agreeemnt a fair share of the housing programme, and to that extent it will be unnecessary to operate this Clause, and it will only be applied where the necessary housing accommodation cannot be secured by methods of agreement.
Another minor provision of a kindred character is in Clause 6, which prohibits the demolition, during this period of scarcity of houses, of existing dwelling-houses which the local authority deem are proper for dwelling-houses. It is proposed to prohibit the demolition of such houses to make room for buildings for other purposes. We have had before us a number of cases where good dwelling-houses have been acquired and pulled down, much to the anger of the local population, by people who wish to build theatres or cinemas. That should not he permitted during the period of scarcity,
and we therefore provide that before that kind of thing can be done the consent of the local authority must be obtained, and pro tanto it should be insisted upon that before such dwellings are pulled down other satisfactory buildings shall be provided. Another minor provision of the Bill is contained in Clause 3, in that part which deals with schemes for the conversion of houses into flats. There is a provision in the existing Act whereby the Ministry itself may assist local authorties in such matters, but that Act does not provide what shall be done with the houses when they have been converted. It appears to the Ministry of Health, which is the body responsible, that these buildings should form part of the local housing scheme. We know the position of the local authority under the general finance scheme, and the limitation of their liability, but this Clause does directly what has been done in other cases by agreement. The House may be interested to have a few figures from London. We have found 2,700 empty houses, half of which were clearly suitable for conversion, while the other half were less satisfactory. It is interesting to observe that 842 have already been adapted and occupied by private enterprise. What surprised me more—and I have seen the figures given out by architects—has been the cost of the conversion of these unoccupied houses into decent fiats. Nothing has surprised me more than the slowness of private enterprise in taking hold of this excellent business proposition. The expenditure incurred up to the present, which will exhaust the money here asked for, represents in all about 600 flats, and it is perfectly clear that had acceded to the request of the local authorities they could have made a good profit out of the scheme and could have obtained much more rent than is allowed to be charged within the intentions of this Act I commend this matter to those interested in this subject as a good commercial proposition Many houses of this kind have been taken in hand by local authorities We have about 105 in one case and 196 in another. But we have limited our activities to these purposes in the summer months, during the transitional period, and we do not want to continue it any longer than can he avoided. I believe this provision will cover all that it is necessary for the Ministry to do.
Some time ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in agreement with myself, ap-
pointed a Committee to go into the question of raising housing loans, and Mr. Goschen's Committee's Report was issued a few days ago. Here I would like to emphasise a remark which I made the other day, as to the power of localities to finance themselves. We have before us a number of instances of great municipalities which say that they are not able to raise more than a particular amount for housing. Practically I think one is entitled to be a little sceptical on that. There is plenty of money about for investment, and in proof of that all I would ask hon. Members to do is to look at the advertisement columns in the daily papers during the past few weeks, and they will see the number of new issues that are advertised. Our shops also tell us that there are plenty of people in the great centres of population who have money to spend in all kinds of extravagance, and I think it is very necessary that these people should be induced to invest their money in providing houses rather than in buying new hats. There is an orgy of extravagance in some parts of the country, and we ought to take a stand on this and say it is not right to expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise money to help everybody out of what is supposed to be, but is not by any means, a bottomless purse. Therefore I think the proposal of this Committee, that we should do everything we can to help to make it easy for local authorities, by the issue of housing bonds, to finance their own housing schemes, should he supported. I believe that these bonds, if they were properly brought to the notice of the people, would constitute an attractive investment. Details of the proposals affecting bonds will he found in the Schedule of the Bill as well as in Clauses 7 and 8. It will be noticed that Clause 8 provides for the continuance in respect of these matters of the power to borrow money from foreign lenders, as provided under the Public Authorities and Bodies (Loans) Act, 1916; also it is provided that where the authorities join they may jointly issue local bonds. It is perfectly clear, certainly in the extra-Metropolitan area, that we ought to look for the co-operation of a great number of authorities in this matter. As a matter of fact, it is highly desirable in the extra-Metropolitan area that we should have comprehensive joint schemes for borrowing. There are many districts which constitute the dormitories of London and which in themselves are not of
much credit to the Metropolis. It is clear that they ought to be helped to be as far as possible united in this effort. Therefore we provide that joint schemes for the floatation of these bonds shall be legal.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Are they to be trustee securities?

Dr. ADDISON: Following the example of many of the Northern cities, I think it will be found that many other places could attract the money of their citizens to this very desirable form of investment if a properly organised effort was made. Many cities and even small places in some parts of the country have no difficulty at all in financing their housing schemes. Somehow there has grown up a practice among people in the locality of lending their money to the municipality, and they do not find much difficulty in raising the necessary funds. But there are some districts, I am sorry to say, who immediately lean up. against the Minister of Health, in the first place, and ask him to lean upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, without making any very great effort themselves. I do hope, and I very respectfully ask, that Members of this House should do all they can to help in their different areas in making the campaign we propose to institute for the floatation of these local bonds a real success.
There is one other provision, which is an amplification of powers which we have found to be required, and which will be found in Clause 9. That provides that where a number of authorities or public utility societies desire that a tract of land should be taken for housing and other developments, the Minister of Health may take it on their behalf, they having to finance it and he acting merely as their agent. Experience shows that if housing is to be done with proper foresight, a. good many schemes of this character will have to be undertaken. It is clear that in many parts of the country no one authority will be prepared to undertake it. In London, of course, we have the advantage of a great authority in the London County Council. They have recently acquired a large tract of land on the north side of the Thames to the east of the City. There we have a great opportunity for good town-planning and for industrial development, with proper transport facilities, on a big scale. There are others in the earlier stages of development
throughout the country. As to the kind of purpose it is proposed to serve here by acting in the name of a number of bodies, I may mention what is clearly a necessity, for example, in South Wales. There are some parts of South Wales to-day where the proper thing is to get a grouping of authorities and to have your residential quarters at the end of the valley, with road communications towards the collieries and so on, rather than perched in difficult positions on the hill sides at great cost. In that class of cash what is really wanted is a combination of the authorities or public utility socities that is prepared to develop for these purposes a sufficiently large tract of laud. It is in order to meet cases of that kind that this provision is made. I am glad to say that since the Debate we had the other day the building trade as a whole is co-operating most heartily with us in furthering the schemes of, the local authorities. From the indications which have been made, I feel certain that, if the House sanctions this scheme, it will represent a material supplement to our housing provision which we should not otherwise be able to obtain. Every useful supplement is clearly necessary. I feel confident that these provisions, in the necessities of the time, will represent a necessary and useful addition to our powers for dealing with the housing scarcity and as such I commend the Bill to the House.

Sir P. MAGNUS: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what rent a working man will be expected to pay for one of the houses such as he has suggested, the cost of the building of which, apart from the cost of land and drainage, would be between £300 and £600?

Dr. ADDISON: I cannot answer that in general terms. It entirely depends upon where the house is, the locality and that sort of thing.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, arid to insert instead thereof the words
this House declines to proceed with a Bill embodying and continuing a policy of using public necessity as the opportunity for subsidising private interests, which permits the relaxation in favour of landowners and speculative builders of regulations enforced on local authorities, which lowers the standard of housing, and delays the operation of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919.
I am sure we all are most anxious to do everything we can to expedite the building of houses. I submit, with all respect to the greater experience of the right hen. Gentleman, that there is nothing in this Bill or in the course of proceedings he has outlined which cannot be done under the Act of July, 1919. The right hon. Gentleman referred at some length to the arrangements which have been made with the federated builders, whereby, instead of having the old-time system of competitive tendering, agreed prices are to be got out and the work in the different districts is to be allocated among tin builders in the federation. The right hon Gentleman said that was an arrangement which would considerably increase the number of houses and the speed with which they would be put up. That is what will be done and is being done under the Act we passed last July. The right hon. Gentleman further suggested that what might be possible for the large contractors was not equally applicable to the small man working by himself or perhaps with his son, because he had no staff to get out the specifications and therefore a subsidy might he desirable in that case. I submit that the system of agreed prices or arranging for a lump sum for all the houses that will be paid by the locality, is equally applicable to the small man and could be done under the Act we passed last July. The right hon. Gentleman also suggested that the builder could build cheaper if he had not to conform with all the detailed specifications required under the original Act. I submit that that case is also met in the original Act, because under Section 12 (3), the local authority may agree to take over from the builder, when he has built the house, that house at an agreed price, leaving the builder the same freedom which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested he can only get under the new subsidy provided in this Bill. There is nothing in this new Bill which cannot be done as satisfactorily, nay, more satisfactorily under the Act we passed in July of this year.
I ask the Government, why this change of policy? As lately as July of this year they turned down, without having carefully considered it, this question of a subsidy to private builders. In Committee upstairs the right hon. Gentleman was pressed again and again to grant to the private builder, on the same terms and conditions, the same grant as we are giving to the local authorities. He kept a stiff
upper lip and refused absolutely, on grounds of public policy, to use public money to subsidise the private builder. I ask why, when only four months have elapsed and that Act has not had a. chance of getting into good working order, does the right hon. Gentleman come down to the House and ask it to reverse absolutely the principle it passed unanimously in July of this year? We are told that we are not getting the houses. The best answer to that is the speech of the Prime Minister on Saturday at Manchester, when he said that the Act had only been in force for four months, and that more had been done in that four months than under all the other Housing Acts, which was not a, bad record for an Act which was only four months old. Judging from some of the criticisms of that Act, you ought to be able to go into a shop to buy a house as you would a pocket-handkerchief and come out with a house under your arm. Builders know very well that if you want to build a house you cannot do it in three or four months. If a gentleman is putting up a private residence or a cottage for a gamekeeper or a lodge-keeper, he could not. get out the specifications and build the house within four months. Criticism such as that is absolutely absurd. It is in the case of the local authorities that you say the Act has failed, because the houses are not being put up. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), in the Debate last month, attempted to cast derision on the Act because of the restrictions that were required and the conditions which had to be followed by the local authorities. He gave us an illustration. He said he had a letter from a. local surveyor, which stated that certain formalities had to be gone through. First, you had to get the site.

Lord R. CECIL: It was not the local surveyor; it. was the clerk to a local. authority.

Mr. THOMSON: I beg tire Noble Lord's pardon. I should have said it was the clerk. He said that the site had to be approved, not merely by the local authority and not merely by the Minister of Health, but also by an authority under the Finance Act? Why? Because they are anxious that the local authorities should not be plundered in the acquisition of sites. The Noble Lord referred to the Treasury. We find that, in the cases that have come before them, no less than £60 an acre has been saved on all those
schemes that have been submitted to the officials of the Valuation Department under the Finance Act. That means, if you take the whole of the land which is required to build the 500,000 houses which the scheme contemplates, that a sum of eat less than £3,000,000 would he saved. Is that not worth some consideration? I do not. mean to say that the Noble Lord would object to the saving of,£3,000,000 or that he suggested than any-one should get a penny more than is due to them or that he objected to getting laud at a reasonable price. he asked, "Why all these inquiries, first, by the Minister of Health and then by the Valuation Department?" My answer is, that if, by a little delay, you can save £3,000,000 of public money in acquiring this land, that delay will be worth making. Then the Noble Lord referred to the fact that plans have to be submitted, and also the lay-out showing the number of houses end the general features, then a separate estimate, including the cost of specifications and quantities. The implication was that there was nothing more ridiculous than a lay-out being required for workmen's houses. The whole foundation of the Act of July last was that we were to have a higher standard of comfort in the houses which the working classes were to occupy, and that we should no longer have too many houses built to the acre, with a number of miserable streets and dingy conditions. We want a proper lay-out, and that lay-out should provide for a limited number of houses, so that the houses could be worthy of the name and should 'let be the hovels we have bad in the past.
5.0 P. M.
The Noble Lord also said that tenders were also required. I do not know of a building operation W here tendering has not been required. I fear that the clerk to the local council must have been anxious to find fault unnecessarily with the details of the scheme. Any building society, before, it, advances money to a builder, would require the same particulars, and would make the same inquiries as are provided for in the; Act. Therefore, I submit there is nothing in the Act itself which has made for delay. The provisions in the Act. are absolutely sound, and are looked upon by housing reformers in the country as the Magna Charts of the new England we want to create. Anything which will delay, as this Bill does, the activities of these authorities, who are to acquire land and lay it out., with proper designs and plans to rebuild Eng-
land, is a serious setback to the scheme of last July. No doubt there have been defects in administration, and delays, but did you ever hear of a works putting down machinery or a factory enlarging its plant, and because in the first few months they could not get the maximum of production, scrapping the plant and digging up the foundations, as you propose to tear up the foundation of your original Bill? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The right hon. Gentleman said the one material factor that had changed since the Bill was introduced was the increased shortage of labour available for the demand that exists. If you are going to subsidise the private builder you are going to draw from the local undertakings work which would otherwise go into their hands. The Act has not failed.
The Prime Minister, in November, apparently had some qualms of conscience as to this change of policy, which he suggested was not a change of policy, because he said the original Act provided for local authorities to prepare their plans and specifications and see what they could do. He suggested that four months had elapsed and local authorities were not able to do what was expected, and therefore they had to bring in private enterprise. But the original Bill passed last July made provision for the failure of the local authorities. It was not forgotten. It was provided for. It was not provided for by a subsidy. That was deliberately rejected by the Government. They provided that. where a local authority failed after the lapse of three months, the Minister of Health should step in and make good the default of the local authorities. Have the local authorities failed? When the right hon Gentleman spoke on this question in November he said he had not come down in order to apologise for the Act, and I am sorry he has come down today with this belated measure upsetting the original scheme. Local authorities have acquired sites for the whole 5,000,000 houses outlined by the Prime Minister, and house plans have been sent in for 70,000 houses, and they are coming in at an increasingly progressive rate. I think he said the rate for the second part of November as compared with the first had increased threefold, and if this Bill had not come in to jeopardise and to hinder the work they were doing—and it
is hindering it—before the end of the year the full 100,000 house plans would be in, which would absorb all the labour available at the moment, and at the rate they are coining in house plans would be forthcoming which would take up the whole available supplies both of material and of labour.
I said just now I knew localities were holding out. I had a case only this weekend of a local authority which had plans and was prepared to go on with the scheme. But when they heard that the Government was going to give a subsidy of £150 to the private builder they said. "No, we will hold our hand. Why should we build if the private builder is going to be subsidised?" I am satisfied that there will be many other cases where local authorities who are not too anxious to get on with the work in some cases will make this an excuse for delay, and accordingly the whole district must suffer. I have been a member of a local authority for twenty years, and we have been striving all we know how to improve housing conditions, but we have been up against the private interests—the speculative builder and the property-owner—all the time. We have been defeated first on one line and then on another. When this great Act was brought in we thought, here at last was our salvation, and local authorities could sweep away the vested interests, rebuild their towns, and abolish slums. Now you are going back on the old plan. You are going to subsidise the jerrybuilder and the speculator. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] One hundred and fifty pounds is to be paid to anyone who is prepared to put up a house. [HON. MEMBERS: "Subject to conditions!"] It has to pass the local authority, but there has not been a house put up in this country in a town which has not had to pass the local authority. Every house that is being erected has had to conform to the by-laws of the local authority and to be approved by them. That is no protection for you. What have they given you in the past? They have given you 95 per cent. of your houses, and I am quite certain no one is going to claim credit for those 95 per cent. of houses which have been built in our industrial towns, because they are an absolute disgrace to civilisation. The ordinary industrial houses of our large towns are a scandal and a disgrace to a civilised community. You have miserable health conditions. You have a death-rate which
has given you a C 3 population to run an A 1 Empire. In my own town we have a death-rate for the last year of 22.8 per 1,000—I am afraid very nearly the top of the tree—and the infantile mortality was 145 per 1,000. In ninety-six large towns of the country I find last year, for the first time in our history, the death-rate was higher than tie birth-rate. and that is a product of your private enterprise and the speculative builder. They have been a disastrous failure so far as the health of the community is concerned. Houses have been built for rent and for profit, and not in the true sense for the health of the community. Many of us have hailed this Bill as being a release from the old conditions, but we find instead that we are to go back to the old conditions.
I noticed that the hon. Gentleman (Sir T. Walters) was not altogether comfortable with regard to the subsidy. He suggested it was not a subsidy at all. I suppose the problem he put before himself was "When is a subsidy not a subsidy?"and the answer is, when it is paid to a private builder or a landlord. It is a subsidy, and it is quite unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Pretyman) gave instances where a private builder was able to build houses for £500 each and sell them at a profit. In my own district houses are being built and have been sold since the Armistice at a profit. by private builders. What has happened there is now happening throughout the length and breadth of the country. Owing to the tremendous shortage of houses and owing to the money which many people have and do not know what to do with there is no difficulty at all in private builders building and selling houses at, a profit, provided they can get them built in the next few months, without the need of any subsidy whatever. The man who built for £800 in my district and sold at a profit will naturally gladly take £150 for some hundreds more houses. But why should he be subsidised when the market is such that he can build and sell at a profit without that subsidy?

Dr. ADDISON: He is not doing it.

Mr. THOMSON: I gave one or two instances where it is being done, and they could be multiplied throughout the country. You say there has been delay. In other trades and industries people have marked time to see how developments were going and whether prices were going to fall, and quite recently, not merely in
house building, but in all other industries, there has been renewed activity. People have found it is no good waiting any longer, and prices were not going to fall any more and, therefore, builders have set to work to put up these houses. There will be no difficulay in selling all the houses which are built within the next six or nine months at an economic price without a subsidy. But even if it was not so, why should a subsidy be given to the private builder and the landlord? Where you have public money expended it should go for the use of the people and the locality itself and not for any private interest. It is going into the pockets of private individuals. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] A builder can build a house for £500 or £600. The £150 will go to the man who builds the house, and not to the tenant who is going to occupy it. Therefore, it is a direct subsidy, and you have no check whatever. You may argue that the houses otherwise will not be built. In. many cases they are being built, and in all those cases where they would be built it is a direct subsidy. Where you have public money expended it ought to go to the local authorities and not to the private individual. By bringing private individuals and speculative builders into competition with local authorities you will hold up their work. Do you think a builder is going to tender for your houses in a locality if instead he can build for himself and make a profit and get £150 in addition from the Government? If in many cases he can sell now at a profit without a subsidy, if you offer him £150, he will say, "No, I will not tender to the municipality. I will not enter into any agreement with the federated builders, because if I do I shall Dimply be working for un ordinary profit on my turnover, whereas if I wait till the Bill is passed I can get £150 and make my profit as well." Therefore builders will hesitate before they go on with the schemes which the local authorities have already in hand. You have spent months and months, and no one has worked harder than the right hon. Gentleman in doing spade work, preparing plans, and getting all arrangements made and contracts entered into with the local authorities, and now at the last minute you scrap the thing. A child who has a garden and wants to see how the plants are growing tears up the roots. That is not good for the plant, and it will not be good for the houses you lope to build. The builders will not go on
and after the negotiations they have in hand if they find that by waiting a few more months until all the orders and restrictions which you will have to pass under this Bill have been approved, they will come along and take the £150, and the community will be the poorer because they have had to wait so long for the houses.

The PAYMASTER-GENERAL (Sir T. Walters): The subsidy will only be paid upon completion within twelve months.

Mr. THOMSON: No, and we shall not get the houses until the various orders which will have to be tabled have been put before the House and laid on the Table, and the Regulations have been issued by tile Minister of Health, and all that takes time. The principal criticism of the Act of July last was that you had to have various Regulations from the Ministry of Health. You will have similar Regulations before you are able to give your £150, or if you do not, are you going to have a lower standard of houses than that which the municipality has aimed at? if so, I object even more strongly. You nave built up under the Act a scheme for the social rebuilding of England. You were going to sweep away the old conditions. Now we are told we have to scrap the thing because you want to subsidise private builders. That will be the effect. It will delay building. How can you expect the builder to tender to the local authority Row can you think. that he will agree to a price which will simply give him a small working profit when by waiting a few months he can get £150 subsidy as well as his working profit? I beg the house to reject the Bill, because it is undesirable to make the country's needs the excuse for subsidising private erterprise. It is most unfair to have a dual standard, a high standard for the municipality and a low standard for the private builder. You are going to allow him more houses to the acre; you are not imposing upon him the same restrictions and the same high standard as in the case of a municipality. We do not want to go back to the old standard. We want better ideals and better homes, and you will not get that under the scheme now produced. The House approved in July of a better scheme for rebuilding the country, and I hope it will reject a scheme which will inevitably hinder good work and set up a lower and inferior
standard. Instead of expediting you delay by many months the building of the houses which were well under way under the 1919 Act, an Act passed on a sure sound policy, and not passed on a subsidy to private interests.

Major BARNES: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am sure the Minister of Health realises that the Mover of the Amendment and myself have no desire to hamper him in carrying out his work. it is because we think that this measure is not really in the interests of the housing question that we are opposing it. It is not that we love this Bill less, but that we love his first Bill more, and that we think the effect of this measure will impede the great work to which he set his hand four months ago. We all approach this question with views that are coloured to some extent. Some of us believe very much in public enterprise; others do not believe in public enterprise at all, but believe very strongly in private enterprise. That perhaps cannot be avoided when this question is discussed. In the very interesting speech delivered on Saturday we were told that the future of this country was going to be divided on these lines; some of us are going to stand for the maintenance of the present fabric of society as it is, while others are out to destroy it. Whether that be so or not there can be no doubt that this housing question was approached four months ago as a great public enterprise, and the proposal put before the House to-clay is to place it back to some extent into the region of private enterprise. In the past the houses of this country e been provided by private enterprise, but there was very little doubt in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman and in the mind of the House that when this question was approached in the earlier part of the year it was approached as a great public enterprise. There are good reasons for taking that view. Hon. Members opposite are mislead by the fact that they are thinking of the. house simply as a house; that it is only a questions of producing a house, without thinking very much of the kind of house and the position of the house, The great growth of feeling during the past ten, fifteen, or twenty years along the line of housing reform has been in the direction of seeing the housing problem, not as the problem of the individual house, but as the pro-
blem of houses planned in the best way, built in the best way, and put in the best position. These results have not been obtained in the past under the system of private enterprise, and in the very nature of things they cannot be obtained.
What has private enterprise meant in the solution of the housing problem? In the first place it meant the site. There has never been any consideration in the selection of the site for workmen's houses as to where it was, whether it was in the best position with the proper kind of aspect and the best sort of surroundings. The site was selected because it was the site that the landlord was most willing to dispose of the site that was in the nearest proximity to the town. After the question of site the cost was determined by the question of ripeness. The land was not parted with for building purposes until it bad acquired a certain value. If it laud arrived at a value of £500 or £600 the landlord thought it was ripe enough to be plucked. Then the land passed into the hands of the land jobber, who laid it out without any consideration as to the way in which one would desire the land to be laid out. His sole business—and I do not blame him, because the price that he had to pay for the land made it imperative—was to get the largest number of houses on she land without regard to whether they went north or south or east or west, or whether they had a satiny aspect. Then the land passed from the land jobber into the hands of the builder. Here, I think, the right hon. Gentleman is in a difficulty. I think he would rather not have had this Bill if the truth were known. It he had had more worldly wisdom he might have been better off. He went out to get land for the community and to get it in the cheapest, possible way. If he had been willing to pay more for his land, if he had not employed the services of the Valuation Department to get the land so cheaply, he might have been in a different position. Daring the past four months he has obtained 50,000 acres of land on which 500,000 houses can be built, and he has got that land for the community, ready to place it in the bands of the builder, at £180 per acre, or something like £9,000,000. I can speak from my own personal experience as a surveyor and architect for over twenty years. The average price to private enterprise for building land in the past has been more like £900 an acre than £180 an acre. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has
taken something like £40,000,000 out of the pockets of the landowners and the land jobbers of this country. Can he wonder if he has been put under pressure?
Let us look at facts as they are, without pretence. The real fact is that the whole pressure that has been behind this movement has been the pressure of landowners and land jobbers who have got land upon their hands which, under the conditions of the Housing Act, is not saleable. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] There is reasonable ground for saying that.

Lord R. CECIL: No.

Maor BARNES: The Noble Lord says No. What is the If this Bill is not passed and if the main Bill goes forward and the schemes of the local authorities are carried out, what market is there for the undeveloped land in existing building estates? It is perfectly obvious that there is no market for it. I do not blame the owners of estates for being anxious to realise them. It is only natural.

Mr. HOHLER: Can the hon. Member tell of one single building that has been held up for want of land?

Major BARNES: That is not my point. I am inquiring into the reasons why this Bill is brought forward, and the reasons for the proposed subsidy. What is the object of the subsidy? Is it to get builders no build upon land which the right hon. Gentleman has been the means of procuring? Not at all! The object is to get buildings upon the land on building estates which have been lying partly developed. If there is any proof needed of that, here is a circular, sent probably to every hon. Member, by Messrs. Edward Evans and Sons, auctioneers and surveyors. It is a most interesting circular. It is suggested that under this Bill we are going to get a great number of houses built by tine speculative builder. The provisions of the Bill are that in the way of subsidies they are to be given from £120 up to £160. This circular is issued by a very large firm who appear to have a great deal of land on their hands and seem to be in touch with a great number of people who have land. They say that, in the first place, there must be no bedding by the municipal authorities above a certain class. They say that this Bill is no use at all if the local authorities go on building houses other than those of the very smallest kind. They point out very
frankly that there are some people who cannot afford to pay an economic rent, and they say that the State must stop building for these people. They add that there are plenty of working people who can afford to pay an economic rent, and they say the State must stop building for these people. If this Bill is to be any good at all, the right hon. Gentleman, according to this circular, must give instructions to the municipalities that they are not to go on building the larger houses, otherwise the subsidy will be of no use. The circular goes on to say:
If the State will confine their schemes to these smaller houses and leave the building of the larger working-class houses to private enterprise builders, offering them a subsidy of £20 for each one thousand cubic feet for a house from 10,000 to 15,000 cubic feet, which is a subsidy of from £200 to £300, we are quite sure that the shortage will be made up by them.
Subject to the giving of this subsidy of from £200 to £300, this firm say that they are prepared to set about completing their partially-developed estate forthwith. That is the statement made by an important firm as to the kind of terms which must be given if this measure is to be a success. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give these terms? He is not prepared to say to the local authorities, "You need only build the smallest class of houses."He is not prepared to give a £200 or £300 subsidy. That being so, this offer is not a firm offer.
What will happen under this Bill is that you will not get the results that you expect. You will delay the local authorities from getting on, and you will lower the standard of housing. There is no doubt about that. The people of this country are not looking for houses as houses; they are looking for the improved standard of houses that was promised. I am speaking from my own experience. In Newcastle-on-Tyne during the last two or three days there has been a large and important conference which voted entirely against a subsidy, and the chairman of the conference, the leader of the Labour party in Newcastle-on-Tyne, speaking from his knowledge and experience of the working classes of this country, said that they were prepared to wait from two to six months, or even longer, in order to get an improved standard of housing. Hon. Members must have realised four months ago, when the last Bill was brought forward, that the plan must take time and cost money. It
has been suggested that there are steps that might have been omitted, but if you take each step in detail, as the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) did, there is not one single step that could have been omitted without detriment to the scheme in charge of the Minister of Health.
If the House would have patience and the Minister have courage and fortitude and keep a stiff back against this pressure, I am quite sure that within the next six months he would be able to show through the local authorities such an advanced solution of the housing problem as will satisfy the whole country. But there must be time, and the way in which the scheme is going to be defeated is by setting up this dual standard. We were told by the Leader of the House in the Debate on Premium Bonds that you could not run two schemes of thrift—Premium Bonds and War Savings Associations together. The same thing is true about housing. You cannot run a low standard of housing, subsidising private builders and leaving them free of restrictions, with a higher standard of housing imposed upon the municipal authorities. That is the position which would be brought about by this Bill. You would have houses of an inferior class erected out of public money with the builder left free to get the biggest price and highest rent he can. On the other hand the local authority has to build houses of a higher standard which must cost more and has to be under restrictions as to the rent charged. This is bound to make the local authorities hold their hands to see how this other scheme goes on.

Mr. HOHLER: Where do you find this in the Bill? It is to he approved by the local authority and ire in accordance with regulations of the Local Government Board.

Major BARNES: Hon. Members know that. the intention and whole purpose of the Bill is to permit the erection of houses of a lower standard.

Mr. HOHLER: That is not in the Bill.

Major BARNES: I appeal to the Minister of Health. In developing his proposals he said that when spending public money through a public' body you must demand a higher standard than was demanded in the case of these houses in private hands. That is the whole position. When this Bill is passed you will have
local authorities tied to building houses of a superior character and under severe restrictions as to rent and other matters, and side by side you will have put up houses of a comparatively low standard on which there are no restrictions. Members of local authorities will say: "Why go on with this more expensive scheme? Wait and see what will happen under the new Bill." The result will be that after four or five months the housing situation will be worse than it is to-day.

Lord R. CECIL: I rise earlier than I had intended on account of the speeches which have just been delivered, the tone of which greatly regret. I had hoped that we had got rid of all those appeals to ignorant prejudice. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down must have lived in a part of the country quite different from anything in my experience. He says that landowners are in the habit of getting £900 per acre for the development of their estates as building estates. I cannot tell what may be the case in the district from which fie comes. In my Constituency I have inquired what was the average price of land bought. for the purpose of building, and I was told that it was £50 per acre, which includes both urban and rural sites.

Mr. SPENCER: Are you speaking for the whole of the country?

Lord R. CECIL: I am speaking for my part of the country. In many cases land is given freely, and as far as rural districts are concerned—and my experience is mainly rural—the price of land is absolutely negligible. Anybody speaking without prejudice must know that that is so. The hon. Mover believes that there is no salvation anywhere outside a municipality. He thinks it absolutely fatal to encourage private industry in any respect. I take as an instance of the way in which his mind moves his statement that an examination of the prices of the land by a Treasury official has resulted in a saving of £60 per acre in the cases in which the matter was contested. How many cases was that? A perfectly insignificant number.

Mr. T. THOMSON: The statement with regard to £60 an acre was made by the Minister of Health, and the amount in the cases up to that time was over £400,000.

Lord R. CECIL: I do not think so.

Mr. THOMSON: That is what the Minister of Health says.

Lord R. CECIL: But the hon. Member said that there was a saving of £3,000,000 on the 500,000 houses. He must know perfectly well that in a vast number of cases the land does not cost £60 an acre, and the idea of saving £60 an acre is fantastic. If he does not know that he cannot have made any inquiries into the subject.

Mr. THOMSON: It is £1000 an acre in my Constituency; I am speaking of what I know.

Lord R. CECIL: You should not assume that what happens in Middlesbrough is a proper criterion of what happens in the rest of England. Then he took me very much to task, and so did the hon. Gentleman opposite, because I objected, the excessive details of the requirements imposed on local authorities by the present Act. I do not dispute that each of those' requirements is in itself reasonable enough if you take them one by one and say, "Why should not that be done?"The point is that if you proceed in that way, in the bureaucratic way so dear to the hon. Gentleman, you do involve a very great increase in the cost of building. That is the fact. No one can put it more clearly than my hon. Friend. He says that local authorities cannot build as cheaply as the private builder, the same type of houses, of the same value. Everyone knows that that is so, and must be so, even in Middlesbrough. It certainly is so in other parts of the country. That is the whole point of my criticism—not that the things were individually wrong, but that taken in the aggregate they increased the cost of building. I was very much interested in the whole attitude of the hon. Gentleman. He did not attempt to meet the main point, that the cost of houses is such at present that there is no hope whatever that they will be let at an economic rent. Is his plan really and seriously that for all time in tic future there shall be a subsidy paid on every working-class house?

Mr. THOMSON: I am supporting the original Bill, passed unanimously in July of this year, which provided for a subsidy for writing off what may be called a wasting asset, and eventually, in seven years, getting an economic rent. I stand by the Government scheme.

Lord R. CECIL: The figures have shown that in point of fact you cannot get an economic rent unless you are going to raise the rent of these houses to some-
thing far above what any rural labourer can be asked to pay. You have got to deal with the facts as they have turned out on the experience of the scheme. The hon. Gentleman referred to the health statistics. No one feels more than I do the necessity of doing everything possible to improve the health statistics. It is a matter in which I have always taken the very greatest interest. Still it is hardly true, to say that the present statistics are ail due to housing. After all, there has been an enormous improvement in housing. The real proposition was that. private enterprise, strictly controlled by the public authority, does not produce perfectly healthy houses, and in many places, certainly in many of the manufacturing towns, the conditions are deplorable. But it is the old houses which are deplorable, and not the modern houses.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: Yes, the modern.

Mr. LAWSON: They are all alike.

Mr. GRAHAM: Built within the last ten years.

Lord R. CECIL: In a vast number of cases the houses have enormously improved. There may be still some municipal authorities that do not do their duty.

Mr. GRAHAM: It is the private builder.

Lord R. CECIL: The municipalities can control them, and they do control them in the vast majority of cases. If they do not control them it is because they have failed in their duty. They have got ample power to decline to allow any houses to be built which are not thoroughly healthy and suitable. Many municipalities in towns other than that represented by the hon. Member are doing their duty. I recommend him to see that his municipality does its duty.
For my part I approve of the general principles of this Bill. I still doubt whether it is right to have a block grant for the builder. I see great objection to that, and I hope the Government will consider whether some better system cannot be devised. It does seem rather difficult to defend a proposal for giving the same grant to a builder, whatever the cost of a house may be. That seems wrong. The grant ought to bear comparison with the cost and size of the house, and I should have thought that some more elastic system would have been better. I regret still more that there is no provision for abolish-
ing the. Increment Duty in respect of building land. Everything that we, who oppose it. said about it when it was being passed, has come absolutely true. It has produced no money, and it has interfered with the development of land. No doubt it served its constitutional purpose, of getting up a quarrel with the House of Lords, but, having served its purpose, it had better now be buried. I regret that there is no Clause in the Bill for the repeal of the duty. I am sure that nothing held up the building trade more than that tax during the years preceding the War. Do not think that this want of houses is merely the product of the War. It was already a very serious matter before the War. I do not propose to enter on a detailed criticism of the other provisions of the dill. I do not pretend to know exactly how the provisions as to public utility societies and the raising of loans will work out. I should like to have an assurance from the Government that they intend to grant. building material quite freely, and that there will be no attempt to hold it up.

Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions is discussing an arrangement whereby I hype it will be possible to liberate all the materials which are required within a short time. They will have to be, I think, subject to two conditions—the materials that have been ordered for housing shall be required to be used for those purposes, and, further, the price should be arranged so as to prevent profiteering.

Lord R. CECIL: I am glad to have, that. assurance. I recognise that the housing position is so serioas that we cannot afford any delay. It I have spoken rather severely in reply to tile speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson) it is because I am so deeply cognisant of the urgency of this problem, particularly in the rural districts. I should like to bring the Member into relation with the actual facts of the case. Whole populations in these districts cannot marry, cannot be sure of their work, or cannot be sure of their freedom from day to day, until they have houses, and then to be told that we are doing Something wrong because it is against the principles of public policy to grant money to private owners, or that. it will interfere with some magnificent scheme of public ownership of private, houses by the working classes, is simply cruel when we are
dealing with an urgent problem like this. The hon. Member will have no sympathy from those unhappy people whose lives and happiness depend upon the rapid provision of houses. I admit that the Government had no choice in the present condition of affairs but to press this Bill on with all speed; nevertheless, I regret the haste with which we have to consider it. The Bill was introduced only on Friday; it was circulated on Saturday, and the full proposals of the Government were circulated only to-day, and already we are being asked to form our judgment on Second Reading. That is unfortunate. There are many details in this measure which are of a highly technical kind. Personally, I should be glad to know what expert opinion on the one side or the other has to say on these things before expressing a final judgment on the Bill. May I say that the haste with which we have now to consider this Bill is due to the haste with which the previous measure of the Government was passed? [Dr. ADDISON dissented.] I am making the best excuse I can for the Government. If it was not due to that, it was due to insufficient consideration of the problem. I cannot help feeling that the problem was approached from the wrong end. You had two agencies which were, in fact, those supplying houses of this class. I do not accept the view that either of those agencies was under proper conditions an improper one. On the contrary, I believe that both would have done great work. One of them was private enterprise, which supplied 95 per cent. of the houses; the other was public enterprise, winch supplied 5 per cent. The right course would have been to have developed, under proper control and with proper security, the agency which supplied the greater part of the houses. To scrap the whole of them and turn entirely to public agencies and municipalities was an unsound policy. I admit that I have considerable misgiving as to the desirabilty of puble agencies in ths matter: I see great danger if you are going to have a vast number of houses owned by the municipalities. I see also that those who inhabit the houses will have bitter reason to complain of the bureaucratic control which will be established over their tenancies.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: That is not the experience up o now.

Lord R. CECIL: I have misgivings also as to the effect on private enterprise. I feel quite differently from the hon. Member opposite as to the effect of joining public and private enterprise. I am amazed that anyone should like an organisation in this country which will be entirely bureaucratic. People hate it when they come across it actually. There is no one so bitter against the coal control as the miners; no one so impatient, and quite rightly, of bureaucratic management as the employés of the Post Office. It is not that they like it when they have it, but they are persuaded by people, who ought to know better, who tell them that for some theoretical reason it is desirable to have public control. I am quite sure it is not. I say this to the Government, every step that their policy takes seems to me to be towards nationalisation in various forms. The Government protest against it. The Prime Minister goes to Manchester and says that the great issue is the nationalisation of private enterprise, yet every one of their measures is a step towards nationalisation. I am quite as strongly of opinion as anyone in this House that our industrial system needs thorough reorganisation, but I am also convinced that if that means State management it will be disastrous to this country. I am not talking of State ownership, which is a different matter. I am quite convinced that working men when they really understand what it means will be of my opinion. The Government take subject after subject—coal mines, railways, transport, and electricity—all steps towards nationalisation. I do not understand quite what the Government policy really is. I am not disposed to admit that it is a deep Machiavelian scheme to induce the Unionist party and the Coalition Members to accept nationalisation while protesting that they are really against it. That would be to attribute far too deep a policy to my right hon. Friend. On the contrary, I think that what they are suffering from is not Machiavelianism, but great sensitiveness to popular opinion. There is a great clamour, rightly, for housing. They introduced a Housing Bill entirely dictated by the doctrinaires and theorists who believed in municipal enterprise. Then came a difficulty. Municipalities were not able to produce these houses. The figures showed that there was no possibility of the original scheme of the Government being carried through on the lines indicated. There came a clamour
from another side, that the Government ought to assist private enterprise. The Government immediately produced a Bill to assist private enterprise. That is what has happened. I can assure my right hon. Friend that it is producing a very unfortunate effect in the country.
Let the Government have a definite policy. I was almost going to say that it did not very much matter what the policy was, but that would be an exaggeration. Almost any policy is better than no policy. Any single plan is almost better than a vacillation between two or three different plans. I could not help feeling that there was a great deal of force in what was said by the hon. Member opposite, when he declared that here was a Government telling the House that as a matter of principle they would never consent to the granting of subsidies to private owners, and then they came clown and, under some pressure, they asked the House to consent to such a course. There was a certain dialectical force in that. What I say is, Do for Heaven's sake have definite opinions and principles and stick to them; and then I am satisfied that the difficulties which at present beset the Government will disappear.

6.0 P. M.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not propose to follow the Noble Lord into the fascinating, but, if I may say so, rather disorderly, references with which he concluded his speech. I dare say, if I were to follow him on that topic, you, sir, would deal much more drastically with me because I am supposed, in this respect, to know a little better than my Noble Friend. I am very glad the Noble Lord largely withdrew the accusation which he levelled against my two hon. Friends with regard to this subject, because I am afraid, if he had not done so, I would have had to deal rather drastically with that point. Both of my hon. Friends have been distinguished in their public career, before they came into Parliament, for long and unselfish services in the public life of this country, and with regard to housing in particular. The position with regard to this Bill is one which is fraught with considerable difficulty. I think the Minister of Health would be well advised to consider the danger which threatens the Act which is now on the Statute Book. It is perfectly clear from the discussion that a large number of Members present do not regard that Act with too friendly feeling. I repeat what I
said on a previous occasion—I regard that Act on the Statute Book as a very great Act, marking a very splendid advance in public opinion with regard to how the. matter of housing should be dealt with. I would say this to the Noble Lord, that it. was largely because of the failure of private enterprise with regard to housing that public opinion so strongly backed the Act which was passed by the Government recently. It was the growth of slums, and the packing of houses together under conditions which we all condemn, and the whole of the ghastly failure of housing under private interests, which made the case for the Act now on the Statute Book.
I may say that I do not intend to vote for the Amendment now before the House, and I hope it will not be pressed to a Division. I should profoundly regret, as the outcome of the passage of this Bill, which will, and shortly will, become an Act with necessary alterations, and I should regard it as a first-class public calamity if it were to be used as an instrument for really devitalising the great measure to which we look for a great improvement in housing. It is because I hope and believe that the very greatest care will be exercised by those responsible for this Bill when it becomes an Act, to see that the position is adequately safeguarded and is not used in that way that, as far as my small influence is concerned, I will give my assent and reluctant support to it. I do so because I quite agree with the Noble Lord that there is no use now arguing as to what might happen a year hence under the Housing Act. The problem is so urgent at present that something must be done, and I am not at all prepared to stand on economic grounds or to bold back from assisting the Goviernment—this Government or any other Government—in an attempt to grapple with the. problem. My hon. Friend who seconded the Amendment will, I hope, pardon me for saying that the trade union leader who said that the working classes were prepared to wait six months for houses, spoke, I am sure, very largely for himself. That is not the experience of those who know anything about the conditions under which people are now living, and I am certain it is an experience which cannot he maintained for a moment in face of the actual facts. What is going to be done about this Bill? First of all, I hope that the House will emphasise the temporary character of it in Committee, and will accept Amendments to that effect, and which will show that it is a
temporary measure, brought in only to meet a situation which is dangerous to public order and a danger which is darkening and deepening every day.
Let me again urge a point which the Noble Lord pressed on my right hon. Friend, and that is the question of getting at materials. This measure will meet very largely with the same fate as the proposals under the existing Act, unless the Bill does get at the materials. Here it is that the situation becomes so unreal. Immediately you get out you are faced with the hard facts and with the unhappy families who are without homes. The hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Lorden), speaking on the occasion of the last Debate, and with very great knowledge as a builder, said
This cornering of material is a mistaken policy.
There is so much red tape and delay in getting materials through the Government channels. The builders say:
The Government have paid an enormous price and we cannot get our building material at a reasonable price, and we shall not be Able to do so all the time this is happening. The policy would be to take all this control off. Let us have fair competition amonest ourselves and the country will get al the houses very much cheaper."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1919, col. 1329. Vol. 121.]
My right hon. Friend has given us an answer which we have heard before, and has told us of an arrangement, but to what extent is that arrangement going to fructify? Months have gone by since we have had that sort of answer, and that kind of arrangement has been stated over and over again, and on goes the whole miserable business.

Dr. ADDISON: I am sure my right hon. Friend does not wish to misrepresent what I said. The arrangement to which I referred contemplated the release of material for which the Ministry had contracted, so that they could be obtainable in the ordinary trade way. As the Government paid for the material for housing, it is quite clear everyone requiring it would have to produce sufficient evidence that it was to be used for housing, and not for something else at an excessive profit. The proposal is, as I hope, that by 1st January, the whole of the control will be done away with and the material made available for housing purposes at proper prices through ordinary trade channels.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am glad to have the more definite statement that by 1st January—

Dr. ADDISON: We hope that that will be the date.

Sir D. MACLEAN: It ought to be so, and whether the right hon. Gentleman hopes it or not, it should be done., otherwise it may be February or March. We know what has happened. It ought to be 1st January, a definite date when this control which is paralysing and devitalising this problem, is certain to be relieved, and the men who are going to carry on this business shall have the opportunity of dealing with it in a business way. Let me suggest one or two rather minor points. Whoever is going to reply will perhaps tell the House what is expected will be ready for completion under the new scheme by the 1st March.

Sir T. WALTERS: I would like to have the question quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman will not forget that now in the winter time, with frost and snow ahead of us, to talk about great production, especially in the laying of the foundations with brickwork, is a tall order. Let us at least have six months in which we can build.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I know that the Paymaster-General cannot, with all his capacity, control the weather, but I am going to press this matter, for after all, unless we can pin the Government down to dates, we have not got them at all. We have got one date already, 1st January, and let us see if we cannot get a little further. I will give my right hon. Fr end the Paymaster-General to the 1st of May.

Mr. J. JONES: The 1st of April.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I will say six months, or whatever date he selects as most fair for the Administration which he adorns. Shall we say the 1st May, and, if so, I ask how many houses does be think will be complete and ready for occupation for that date under a scheme of than Bill, and, further, how many houses will be completed and ready for occupation under the existing schemes under the Act now on the Statute Book? We shall be glad to know. Those are the only sort of checks this House has on the Executive with regard to bringing them up to their promises, and I want to make the matter as clear and definite as possible.
There is one point which I hope my right hon. Friend will take considerable note of, and great care as far as he can. The builders in the case of these houses are going, as they must, to charge an economic rent, and it looks as if that would be anything from 15s. to 17s. 6d. a week and that, of course, is the trouble. Wages are high, but so also is the cost of everything you have to buy, and the relative proportion available for the rent of a house is comparatively just as little as when prices were low and wages were correspondingly low. There is not the slightest doubt that the class in the community we most wish to benefit will have the least opportunity of availing of these houses as they will go to the person who will give the highest rent, and the builder regards as the most suitable tenant. I admit ilea indirectly that will take off the pressure on the existing houses, and I do not at all agree that houses built in the last ten or fifteen years show no signs of improvement. Of course they do, and we are very thankful for it, only we want them to be better. My right hon. Friend will bear that in mind, and probably the Paymaster-General will have something to say on that when he replies. Here is another really important point. We all talk about the discharged soldier and sailor and his claims upon the community. It would be a very sorry return to him if these first few thousand houses are to be left solely to the economic competition and he is left out in the cold. Is it not possible that under the scheme of this Bill, other things being equal, the Ministry should see that these, men get the first chance? I think something of that kind ought to be done, otherwise we shall find that a very dangerous agitation will be very speedily started.
I wish to say how pleased we all are with regard to some of the Clauses in the Bill, notably the check on extravagant and luxurious building. It is quite easy to make too much of that, I know, but still, allowing for all reasonable deductions, no one can go throughout the country and fail to observe that many hundreds of thousands of pounds are being uselessly spent and much valuable labour is being deflected for extravagant purposes. I also welcome the prohibition of the demolition of existing houses. During this really urgent vital need, we must be careful that no houses which can reasonably be used for human habitation are destroyed and
torn down. Hon. Members know, at least as well as I do, what their letter-bags tell them every day of the pitiable conditions in which many people find themselves. being fired out of houses and unable to get other houses. This sort of thing sometimes evokes a smile, but nobody who has any idea of the future of this country can fail to realise what a tremendously important thing it is, and every day adds to its seriousness. I hope these two provisions to which I have referred will be remorselessly enforced without any hesitation, and that the officials will know that the whole country is behind them in this matter. I hope and believe, when this measure is on the Statute. Book, that my right hon. Friend will exercise the greatest care to sec that in doing this minor good that great measure which is now on the Statute Book is net seriously interfered with.

Mr. PRETYMAN: Very little has been said in this Debate so far about rural cottages, and in my opinion that is really perhaps the most difficult part of the problem. Land may be easily obtained—in fact, obtained for nothing, or at a very low price, for the building of rural cottages, so that the price of the land, at any rate, I do not think any hon. Member opposite will say is a part of the problem. It is purely a question of the cost of building, and, unfortunately, in recent years that very estimable man, the rural builder, has been largely wiped out—the man who had a staff of from a dozen to twenty men, who thoroughly understood all kinds of rural building, where his men, were able to live under fairly cheap rural conditions; and the cost of building under those conditions and by such a roan was distinctly less than it was in a town. Now, unfortunately, there are very few of those men left, and if you want to build cottages in a rural area, in most, cases you have to go to a town builder, who has to pay full urban wages to people living under urban conditions, and who has not only to do that, but has to bring them out several miles every day to their work or to pay them the cost of travelling and lodging where their work is. That, of course, greatly adds to the cost of rural building. I happen to know at this moment of the case of a friend of my own who told me only yesterday that. he is building two pairs of cottages on a rural estate purely for the use of his agricultural tenants, and those are about four miles, I think, from the nearest town. There is no rural
builder there, and he has to get that work done by an urban builder and by urban labour, and the lowest contract he has been able to obtain for the building of those houses is £1,475 for each pair. That would be practically £3,000 for two pairs of cottages. Let us just see where that brings us as far as rents are concerned. I rather regretted to hear my right hon. Friend say that in no case will he consider giving a subsidy to somebody who has begun building houses of this kind before the Act was introduced, as I think there is a case for people who have already begun to build houses under exactly these conditions, and who have not waited to be offered a subsidy; under proper safeguards they should not be deprived of assistance, and I hope my right hon. Friend will reconsider that question.
Take those houses, and supposing somebody wishes to build them now who could get a subsidy You would build a pair of houses for £1,500. You would get £300 towards it, and that would leave you £1,200 as the cost of the pair of cottages. Take even as low as 6 per cent. to cover the cost of building and repairs. I think that would be much too low to take for remuneration to a builder, but I do not think a rural landowner would desire more than a 6 per cent. return, to look at the matter from a business point of view. I do not mean to say that he would ever expect to get 6 per cent., but 6 per cent. on £1,200 is roughly 15s. a week rent; £32 is almost exactly 15s. a week rent for the two houses, so that would bring them to 7s. 6d. a piece. Then there would be the rates in addition, and they would probably amount to another 3s. or 4s., so that I do not think he could possibly put them at less than 10s., and no rural labourer could pay more than 3s. a week in a purely rural district under present conditions. That is the rent fixed by the Wages Board at the standard rent for an agricultural labourer, so that even with the £300 grant for the pair of cottages, that would leave a deficiency on the rent of the difference between 3s. and 10s., or 7s. a week, so that the gap is not filled up by this, and I am afraid that with the present rate of taxation it would be extraordinarily difficult for landowners to provide rural cottages even with the offer which is now made by my right hon. Friend. The House is very well aware that agricultural rents have not been raised, and oat of every sovereign of rent which an agricultural
landowner received before the War he had 17s. 6d. to spend. Now anything from 6s. to 10s. may be taken away from him in tax, and the few shillings left will only go rather less than half as far as before the War. It is, therefore, very difficult for a rural landowner to find the money to build the cottages which are required. Still, I hope some will be able to do something with the assistance of this grant. I have also got a figure I can give to the House. There is a rural builder of the type I have referred to who built me a pair of cottages before the War, a pair of five-roomed cottages, for £350. Out of curiosity I inquired what he could build a pair for now, of similar quality, and his reply was £1,050. That is a lower figure than the £1,475, but that is an illustration of the difference between the cost of cottages built by a rural builder and by an urban one in a rural district. Therefore, I cannot press my right hon. Friend to give a larger subsidy to rural landowners than he would. give to builders, but I think it is only fair to state to the House the difficulty of the rural problem, and it will mean, of course, that a very large burden will be thrown on the local authorities in the rural districts where the houses cannot be provided by private enterprise.
In reference to what my Noble Friend beside me (Lord R. Cecil) said about the Increment Value Duty and the general taxation of that character. I think it is generally agreed now throughout the country that the cessation of building of workmen's dwellings before the War was mainly caused by the incidence of those duties, not so much by the heavy burden of the tax actually exacted, but from the uncertainty of their character and the impossibility of a builder making any calculation as to what might be demanded from him. That, still exists, and as I pointed out in the Debate we had last Friday week, I believe that under the law as it now stands the £150 grant, or whatever the grant may be under this new Bill, given to a builder would be calculated against him for Increment Value Duty. That is an impossible situation, and I do urge very strongly upon the Government—I do not know whether it can be done as part of this Bill or not—that a definite declaration should be made that those taxes in their incidence upon building are going to be repealed. That is what the country expects, and I do not think any-
thing stands between us and that except a feeling that the present Prime Minister was the author of that legislation, and therefore in some sense it would be a slur upon him and his Acts if these taxes were repealed. I do not think we need feel that at all. At any rate, those of us who very bitterly opposed the Prime Minister when he was introducing that legislation feel that what has happened since has wiped out all bitterness on that score between us and him, and we merely look at this matter on its merits. I am quite certain the Prime Minister is quite a big enough man to be able to afford to disregard what might have passed them on a matter of great obscurity that was pressed upon him by individuals who had the most absolute belief in the soundness of the theories they were advancing, and who hypnotised him and many other people to such an extent that this great experiment was undertaken. It has now failed, and until it had been tried it was impossible to ascertain with absolutely certainty what. the result would be. I am not here to say we were right and the Prime Minister was wrong. The Prime Minister and those who advised had no doubt a genuine belief that this legislation was going to enure. for the good of the country. It has proved otherwise. I am sure now we all agree with the right lion Gentleman who spoke just now of the immensity of the crisis in which we find ourselves. Though this country was never in its history in such financial difficulties, and difficult and dangerous as it is for us now to borrow more money, the country is prepared to spend millions, and to borrow millions, in order to provide for these urgent housing needs. Surely if we are going to take a step like that, is it not childish, if I may say so, to allow a piece of legislation, however well ell designed, to stand between the country and housing? When the country knows that it ought to be swept away, we ought not to stand on our dignity in a matter of this kind. There need not be any recrimination on this matter, for we want the houses, and every obstacle that can be removed ought to be removed.
There is another obstacle. This Bill proposes that grants shall be given to all persons who build a house within twelve months, with three months' grace. If every private builder and every private person had absolute freedom, and if it were entirely his own responsibility whether he succeeded in building a house
in twelve months or whether he did not, no one would find any particular fault with that provision. But is it so? The Government have told us that they hope on the 1st January to withdraw the control of building material. That is something. It. is the first step. But may I suggest that it is absolutely useless to withdraw the control of building material such as bricks, which are lying in millions on the brickyards, unless you can get them from the brickyards to the place where you are going to build your house? May I also remind my right hon. Friend that the railways are now State-controlled as well as the brickyards, and that you cannot get bricks from Fletton, let us say, to any other part of England unless you have got the control taken off the railway trucks? Everything that is wanted in the country is in the same position. I go down to the country at the week-end, where I have business matters to attend to, and I ask, "Has this or that been done?" and the reply is, "It has not been done, because we could not get the material." There is not a business man in this House who does not know it. What private individual is going to enter on a contract to spend £1,000 or £1,500 on building a pair of cottages, dependent upon a Government grant of £300, or thereabouts, its the only means to enable him to do it? He sets to work. He makes all his plans, and sees his way to building those cottages within twelve months. He orders his bricks, but they do not come? How is he to build his house if the bricks do not come How is he to control it? What means can that private individual take to bring those bricks to the place where he wants to build his house? That rests not with him, but with the Government control of the railways. Then what is to happen when the house is not completed within the twelve months, not through any lapse or fault whatever of the private individual, hut through various Government controls and difficulties which prevent his getting the material and going on with the work? Is he to get the £300 or is he not? Who is to decide? Is the Minister to be judge in his own case? Is there to be an arbitration? This bald provision of twelve months as it stands is useless. I quite agree that this should be a temporary provision. I quite agree that every inducement should be given, even to the point of a penalty for unnecessary delay, to build the house at the earliest possible moment; but there must be reason, and there must be some
kind of safeguard that where a man undertakes a contract to build a house, where he does his very utmost to carry that contract through in the shortest possible time, and where he fails through no fault of his own, but through default of matters controlled by the Government, then the grant ought not to be withheld, and unless some provision of that kind is made I do not know who is going to take up contracts under this Bill.
There is one more matter only, and that also causes delay. It is a matter, again, with which the Government are concerned. It is a question in connection with the selection of sites. There is too much interference by officials from the Ministry of Health with the selection of sites of the local authority. I mentioned this, I think, in the recent Debate, but I feel I must repeat it, because it really is impossible for an official from London to go down to a local area and in a day's visit to become seised of all local conditions and requirements, and I agree with a great deal that has been said, although I do not at all agree with the tone of one or two hon. Gentlemen. I think they were out rather to make political capital than get houses built. I should like to say how much I appreciated the spirit in which my right hon. Friend opposite approached this question. He was quite willing to criticise, but it was helpful criticism, and not political criticism. At the same time, I do agree that we do not want to repeat the bad slum dwellings and the bad housing conditions, and we do want houses built on proper sites and of proper construction. But what I am afraid happens sometimes is that an official comes down from the Ministry of Health, and he has in the back of his mind that the Ministry of Health has to find the money, and the only thing he looks for, quite regardless of the town-planning of the district, is to find a site which has the greatest possible length of frontage to one or two existing main roads, in order that he may get the longest possible frontage, and avoid road-making and incidental expenses of that character. I quite agree that is a consideration, and ought not to be left out of sight for a moment. But it is not the only consideration, and when you are putting working-class dwellings on a site in a district, there must be regard to the town-planning of the district generally, and it is quite wrong that those houses should be put on sites which, under any reasonable town-planning scheme, would be reserved for a different
class of dwelling, and which are not in that part of the area where the working classes themselves desire the houses to be built. When the local authority cannot get the sites which they have applied for, and are told that, unless they take the sites which are selected by an official from London, they will not get their money, or they will not get their help, which has happened in cases brought to my notice, there is delay, and then the local authority will be held up as defaulters, and told that they are not carrying out their scheme up to time, whereas the real fact is the Ministry of Health will insist on having their own way, and will not give due consideration to local opinion.
There is another ease which, I think, ought to be inquired into so far as I know. I do not like to press it too far, because I have not investigated it closely. But I do think there is a prima facie case for this House to express an opinion upon it. It is the case of the London County Council taking 3,000 acres of the very best agricultural land which can be found in the immediate neighbourhood at Ilford and Dagenham on the main line of the Great Eastern Railway, in order to provide for a town of 20,000 inhabitants. It seems to me that if the London County Council desire to create a new town they could not possibly have chosen a worse place than that, because it is on the Great Eastern, which is already more crowded than any line with suburban traffic. It is almost the very best land for a small agricultural produce, such as vegetables, which are brought to London by cart and do not involve railway congestion. The London markets, particularly the East of London, are largely supplied with vegetable and farm produce from that particular area of hand, and there are plenty of other areas of land on railways not so congested as the Great Eastern, which have nothing like the same agricultural value as that land has, and it does seem to me that it is a matter for the Minister very carefully to examine. The Board of Agriculture are very much affected by this, and I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Boscawen) has just come in. Under ordinary circumstances and in the future, on a matter like taking any land for housing purposes, a local inquiry has to be held. That has been abrogated for two years owing to the extreme urgency. I do, however, suggest that a matter of this magnitude, affecting, as it does, the daily lives and the daily living of
hundreds of small cultivators, the food supply of London, the congestion of a great railway, and the taking of 3,000 acres of land, is a matter that my right hon. Friend would be well advised to inquire into, so that the matter might be thrashed out on its merits and all the various points considered. Therefore, I do hope that in this matter of the Dagenham site he will have an inquiry.
There is one more thing I desire to say, and that is on the general question. The real trouble at the back of the whole housing difficulty is that of finance. There has been very little said here tonight about the difficulty of finding money. There is a difficulty in finding money. There is a difficulty in finding money for anything now. I am quite sure no one in this House can have other than great disquietude when they look at the figures at which Government stock now stands, or can disregard the figure at which the exchange stands against us. All these things point to the increasing value of money and to the increasing difficulty in borrowing. It is all very well for us to pass here proposals which involve the expenditure of millions of money. That money has to be found by borrowing, and although the methods proposed by my right hon. Friend may be following the line of least resistance, I cannot feel absolutely confident that that money will be found. The present value of money is very high. Very high interest is being offered at the present time by various enterprises which are asking the public to find money. I very much doubt whether the temptation offered by the bonds winch my right hon. Friend is going to encourage municipalities to issue will be greater than the draw from these other great enterprises. I do, at any rate, hope that some money may be found. But the question of finance is one of real seriousness. I myself believe that we have come to this pitch, that if we borrow more money, if we increase the cost of production any further, either by raising wages or by any other means, it is really beyond our power to prevent a corresponding rise in prices. If we cannot prevent a corresponding rise in prices to meet any expenditure of the kind, then we have reached a point when that expenditure will not really serve the object which we intend it to serve; we have reached a very dangerous position in the financial situation of this country.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I entirely agree with what has been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down as to the importance of avoiding all party conflict in this Debate. I agree also that the problem is far too urgent to admit of the introduction of old party issues, and that we must seek to face it in a broad and generous frame of mind. While I say that by way of introduction, I am quite sure also that the right. hon. Gentleman opposite will not consider that those of us who criticise and oppose his Bill in certain particulars do so from any destructive point of view. We on these benches are sincerely anxious to have the houses provided at the earliest possible moment. We want to co-operate with the Government towards that end. But we reserve the right to criticise a Bill of this kind when we think, as we do, that we could put forward a better solution. Before I come to the important proposal of the Bill dealing with the question of subsidy, let me deal very briefly with Clause 5, which proposes to regulate what has been commonly called luxury-building. According to a recent Report, about 60 per cent. of the work actually being done at the moment in the building trade is repair work. I gather from the proposals of Clause 5, as framed, that repair work will be excluded from its scope. I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Government that no result could be more unfortunate. We have the testimony of many builders in the country at the moment to the fact that under the cover of so-called repair work a very great deal of structural work is being done. I have in mind one case disclosed by a representative committee that no less than £30,000 was being spent on a mansion house in the country in the name of repairs — work which, under a proper analysis, is really work of new construction. I hope that the meaning and application of this Clause will be greatly extended, and that we shall see a most drastic inquiry into the so-called repair work, in order to get the maximum preference for houses which are urgently required.
Dealing with the subsidy itself, I desire to criticise it from three points of yew. In the first place, we on these benches oppose it because we are quite opposed to the principle of giving grants of public money to private individuals. Until very recently that was the attitude and policy of the Government itself. When the Bills in the cases of England, Wales, and
Scotland were under discussion in Committee upstairs, proposals were put forward by hon. Members to try and obtain grants of public money on substantially the lines which are now proposed. In the strongest possible terms these grants were resisted and opposed by Government representatives. Not only so, but in some. reports of the most influential Committees of recent times this principle has also been sternly resisted. Not very long ago an advisory housing panel of the Ministry of Reconstruction, in a report signed by Lord Salisbury, and by, amongst others, the hon. Member for the Exchange Division, stated: "A direct subsidy from the State to the private builder appears impossible."The report went on to urge one or two reasons in support of that view. There is a second consideration which leads us to oppose this proposal. Personally, to speak quite frankly, I am not in the least excited about its effect, because from all the evidence we can obtain, from builders in Scotland, England, and Wales, the amount is really inadequate, and will not have the effect of calling into the service of the State at this juncture the small builder, to whom presumably this appeal is addressed. What is the position to-day of the small builder? He has ceased, largely because of the War and other matters—pre-war conditions, I admit, as well—to build houses. He has betaken himself to a great mass of repair work of a highly profitable character. he is offered in this connection a subsidy, the maximum of which is £160 per house. The cost per house, according to the most favourable estimate mentioned yet in public debate, is £500—and this is a very favourable estimate indeed. Above that figure the cost per house ranges from £500 to £800. In the case of Scotland, according to the most recent report, the cost of working-class houses is placed at £850. Let us apply the subsidy of £160 to the house which is going to cost anything between £500 and £800 or £850, and we are bound, I think, to come to this conclusion, that even with the subsidy thrown in it will be hardly worth while on the part of the private builder, or the small man, or even the individual, to embark upon this enterprise when he has lying open and ready to his hands a great mass of repair work from one end of the country to the other.
But even if it did succeed in fetching a small amount of that assistance, we are
bound to ask a further question as to whether the houses so provided would be available for the working classes. If I understand this bill aright, the object of the subsidy is to make an appeal for the erection of houses for the working classes. The phrase is definitely used. If, however, we take away the restrictions as regards rent, sale and these restrictions are removed by these proposals—then it follows that the houses erected, with the subsidy thrown in, must be let at rentals which are far beyond the reach of the average working-class home in this country. My contention, therefore, is that this proposal will not reach the working classes, for whom apparently it is especially designed. I want to be perfectly fair and just to the Government in my analysis of this ease. There is nothing destructive, I hope, in my observations, but I want to see if the indirect effect—for it seems to are it must be indirect rather than direct—will be to make available houses similar to those now occupied by the working classes, or the poor, or rather by the better-paid artisans; if so, I believe something might be said for this proposal.
Probably what the Government had in mind was that there might be a transfer from house to house, but in any case it cannot be reasonably contended that the houses provided will fall to the classes that the Government have specially in mind. The third objection is that I believe strongly, notwithstanding the safeguards which have been introduced into this Bill, that the effect will be to delay, and probably delay seriously, the activity of many local authorities in the country. I myself take a. hopeful view, in contradistinction to the Noble Lord opposite, of the activities of tie local authorities of Great Britain. But I am bound to admit that in many of these local authorities in this country there are reactionary majorities who are waiting for any excuse whatever to delay the housing scheme on which they ought to embark, and who, even now, are using the discussion of this subsidy in order to hold back their proposals.
7.0 P.M.
Nothing could be more unfortunate than that which means more delay, and which means an analysis of the subsidy put forward, which means a debate on the part of the Local Government Board and the local authority, and a vast number of other people. To my mind the introduction of unnecessary, and as I
believe, useless complications into the solution of this problem will defeat the very object which the Government have in view. Let me briefly deal with two difficulties, which have been seriously urged as a solution, or rather a partial solution, of the housing problem. I have read many speeches delivered on the opposite side which have suggested that there should be dilution of labour in the building trade. In pre-war times there were probably 800,000 men engaged in the building trade. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of that figure, but during the War approximately 200,000 men have been withdrawn from it. The conclus on of the experts is to the effect that we are attempting a task with 600,000 men which it requires at least 1,250,000 men to undertake. That is not an unreasonable proposition. From what. source can you draw men to the assistance of the building trade to-day? The first. Source suggested is that we should train discharged and disabled for this occupation. Let me say at once, as far as the disabled men of this country are concerned, and I think I may claim some personal experience in regard to them, this proposal is absolutely hopeless. In the first place the character of a great deal of building work is absolutely beyond the physical strength or the ability of a great many disabled men, and from almost every point of view it would not be desirable that they should be trained for a calling for which they are unfitted by physique, or in which they might break down with possibly serious results to themselves and those associated with them. The other reason is that a very large part of what is broadly and generally known as building trade operations in this country is highly seasonal in character. If we include painting and such like work we know perfectly well it is the common experience of men that they are unemployed for months during the year, and that is precisely the class of calling which is very properly ruled out by the Ministry of Labour as the responsible authority for training discharged and disabled men. Unless men can get the promise of definite and regular employment they are held not to be eligible for training purposes. Nothing could be worse than to train a man for an occupation in which he would not be able to earn an adequate living. Therefore, in this connection the training of discharged and disabled men may be ruled out.
Now I turn to the dilution of the rest of the trade by men who are physically fit. As regards tile higher class, the mason and hewing work, it is simply idle to propose dilution in a sphere like that, because work of that kind involves years of training and experience, and we should only pile up the cost and add to the unsatisfactory nature of housing schemes in England and Scotland by the introduction of unskilled, semi-skilled or imperfectly trained labour on hose lines. With regard to the labourer class, the problem of dilution hardly applies, because a man may become a labourer at very short notice and may be admitted to a union, and therefore we have already got all the dilution we can ever get. I think we may bring additional men to the building trade by embarking upon a steady solution of the apprenticeship problem. Men have been driven from the building trade because of the introduction, especially in Scotland, of machine-made stuff which took the place of the high-class character of the work they used to perform. Of course, we cannot go back on that, but there are many other spheres in which we can train men, but which we cannot do until we have addressed our minds to the whole problem of apprenticeship. The other consderation I wish to urge is control of the prices of building materials. I know on the other side of the House there is the strongest objection to any form of control.

Dr. ADDISON: There is no control of the prices of building materials, and there has not been any.

Mr. GRAHAM: Perhaps I should have said control of supplies and not prices. Hon. Members opposite are opposed to any sort of control, and they wish it to be removed. I cordially agree with their complaint because I am not a supporter of the extreme State system which was described by the Noble Lord in the course of his speech. Unless we take into account the regulations of the price of building materials we shall find that the cost of housing schemes is going to be forced up enormously against the community. I do not make that statement from the point of view of hon. Members associated with me, on these benches, and I prefer to take time public returns and statistics of the Government Departments themselves. For the purpose of illustration I shall try to work out briefly what the cost of the housing problem in Scot-
land is likely to be, for there in some respects it is much more acute. According to a short statement published by the Scottish Local Government Board there were three ranges of prices, namely,.£500, £600, and £700 per house, and the cost was spread over three years. The scheme was to provide 65,000 houses at the high figure of £700 per house, and that estimate has now been abrogated in favour of £850. Taking 65,000 houses in Scotland at about £700 per house the cost in the aggregate was put at £45,000,000.
Now that is only the beginning of the question we have in hand North of the Tweed. According to the Report of the Royal Commission on housing in Scotland about 130,000 houses are urgently required, while about 250,000 are considered to be necessary. Taking the higher figure of 250,000, and calling it approximately four times the figure we have already discussed, we have not the slightest difficulty as regards Scotland alone in arriving at an expenditure of £160,000,000 or £180,000,000. Many of us are not unduly distressed by high figures of that kind. We have seen recently what has been accomplished for the parposes of destruction necessary perhaps in the course of the War, and we feel very strongly that if the people of this country resolve to do it a vast amount may be poured out in schemes of construction. Even these large sums will, I think, he forthcoming if we go about the business in a proper way. There is £160,000,000 or £170,000,000 required on a very elementary analysis of our own Scottish housing problem, and that is taking the figure per house at £150 less than the higher figure quoted by the Government Report. In that connection I think we are entitled to say that we ought to do everything we can to keep down the high cost of building materials.
According to common statement, and do not think what I am going to say will be disputed, the cost of many of the materials for housing within recent times has doubled and even trebled, and that is not during the course of the War, but within a period of a year or eighteen months of the present time. During the War the cost of building materials advanced as well, but since the War concluded in many cases the rise has been very great. In this connection we have the strong evidence of the Reconstruction Committee on Trusts, and they pointed out that the sources of supply of a very
large amount of the building material of this country were in the hands of rings, combines or associations. They divided these materials into three classes: firstly, a class which they called uncontrolled, because it was not at the mercy of a combine or trust or association In the second place there was the class which was partially controlled, and, thirdly, the class which was fully controlled, and in the two last classes, the partially and the fully controlled, the Committee considered that the stock was more or less at the mercy of the associations or trusts, which they said comprised 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of the building materials necessary for the immediate and urgent purposes of state housing.
During the course of the discussion on the Scottish Bill. we tried to secure the insertion of a Clause which would deal with the control of these trusts or combines or rings, and unfortunately that Clause was rejected largely on the ground that it was beyond the scope of the measure, and partly on the ground that as it was framed by us it would not effect the object we had in view. The Government replied that they intended to introduce legislation dealing with trusts in this country, and I have no doubt the Bill will be forthcoming. Here we are embarking upon great schemes of expenditure in housing in this country. We are taking estimates from one end of the country to the other. We have the Report of the Government Committee that from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. of the building materials are controlled by trusts and rings, and the Government Bill is not forthcoming, and when it is produced the position will be that we shall have incurred a great deal of expenditure, I believe quite unnecessarily, simply because we have not passed the Trusts Bill before the measures we are now discussing, and because we have not got all the powers which are considered to be the necessary foundation for the financial success of these housing schemes.
I trust the right. hon. Gentleman or whoever replies on behalf of the Government will make it perfectly clear that they are willing to go beyond the milder form of intervention in these matters which now exists, and that they are prepared to address their minds to the whole range of the supply of these building materials and get down the prices to a bedrock level. Unless that is done there cannot be the slightest doubt that the cost of these schemes will be far higher than it need
be. I am not a defender, and I have never defended schemes which are uneconomic in their character. I believe the success of every scheme upon which the State embarks will never justify itself in the eyes of the people or the voters unless it is economically sound. We all recognise that you cannot talk of economic rents or economic conditions for housing at the present time, but surely we should also recognise that it is our plain business duty from every point of view to go as near as we possibly can to the economic solution, and I sincerely trust the Government will keep that in their mind.

Mr. LORDEN: The last speaker has alluded to the cost of materials. The cost of materials in the building trade is ruled entirely by the wages that are paid. Ninety-nine per cent. of builders' materials are manufactured. The only raw material to be obtained is the land upon which he puts his houses. Take the least manufactured article that is used in a builder's business—namely, sand. That has to be quarried, dug, sifted, and carted, and it becomes a manufactured article by the time you get it. If the hon. Member saw the price of sand to-day, he would realise the cause of the rise in the price of houses. The Mover of the Amendment suggested that we should have to start with all the restrictions afresh. I am pleased to see, with regard to the scheme now propounded, that the restrictions are very small indeed. They have been largely done away with. The Mover also suggested that the houses under this scheme would very likely end in slums. He stated that he had been twenty years a member of a local authority, and that they had a very high death-rate and a very heavy infant mortality. One wonders what he was doing during those twenty years.
I would like to offer a few criticisms on the scheme. I hope that they will not be considered destructive, because I mean them to be constructive as far as possible. I would like to be informed why in the White Paper that has been issued the basis of the payment, or subsidy, or grant, or whatever you like to call it, has been altered from cubic contents to superficial area of floors. I do not quite see why that has been done, and it is a great pity that they did not put those figures on the basis of cubic contents. Great emphasis has been placed upon the fact that
this subsidy will encourage builders to come in. Probably it will not encourage them to that extent that some hope. It would have done if it had been done in the early part of the year. If this had been brought in when the other Bill became law. you would have had a great many houses built by this time. Another point with regard to this subsidy has been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Chelmsford Division (Mr. Pretyinan). He said that there were a lot of people who would like to take this subsidy and build cottages. I think you would get a great amount of building by owners who would like to put up cottages and bring down the rent to something like an economic rent. There is a great field before this Bill on those lines
I view with very grave concern the question- of the twelve months, and I hope in Committee something will be done to extend the period, because, however good the will of the builder may be, it is at the present day impossible to get the work done as it ought to be done in its proper sequence. Trucks are the bane of the builder's existence at the present time. He cannot get the materials to keep on his men with proper sequence. He cannot in many instances get sufficient material to prevent long waits. It is, therefore, a very serious problem how you are going to get these houses completed in twelve months. This Bill, I suppose, will not become an Act before 1st January. I am glad to hear that probably it will. Even then you will have January and February in which very little building can be done. It will, therefore, be March before you start, even if the Bill becomes law before 1st January, and you will only have ten months to carry out your operations. I do hope, therefore, that in Committee there will be some Amendment or some latitude introduced, or something done to extend that period.
When you have got your builders' materials and all the members employed, you have still the danger of Clause 5. That is another point which the Minister will have to take into consideration. It is not fair that the builder or the employé should be prejudiced with regard to his work on account of such a Clause. The hon. Member who lies just spoken said that there was nothing in the building trade in which wounded or disabled men, or those receiving pensions could join. I do not agree with him. Many of the
higher works, such as carving, fibrous plastering, and those sort of things, are quite suitable for those men; but you are going to exclude them if you limit building in the way proposed. They will not be wanted, and that is one of the great difficulties that I see with retard to these limitations. You will not give these people an opportunity of coming in. Clause 5 is going further to damage the building trade. Workmen will not come into it unless they see that there is an opening. They are not so stupid that they will jump into a trade where there is not going to be continuous work, and you are going to do away entirely with the highly-skilled man.
The local authorities and the Minister of Health are the authorities to settle what work and what building is to be done other than workmen's dwellings. I take it that they are going to do that with some degree of discretion—at least, I hope so—and that there will be some better work and better class of building. It is also very desirable that we should have some middle-class houses. There is quite as much shortage of middle-class houses as workmen's houses, and it would be very unfair indeed if you did not give any opportunity for the building of middle-class houses as well as workmen's dwellings. Otherwise, what will happen? Instead of the middle-class people going to better houses of eight and ten rooms, they will come down and take these houses—they must do if they have nowhere else to go, and the bulk of the middle-class people are working people, although probably they do net work with their hands—and your shortage will remain and you will have to continue to subsidise the building of houses. I see another grave defect. It has always been the practice of English law that you should have as judges people who are not interested, but here, both in your Court of first instance, your local authority, and in your Court of Appeal, the Minister of Health, you have interested and biassed parties, parties rightly biassed because they want the houses. They will be biassed in favour of the houses, and there cannot he a fair consideration in accordance with English justice. That is one of the defects in the Bill, and I hope that it will be remedied. I would rather not see the local authority a judge, and I would certainly prefer not to see the Minister placed in that position. How can the Minister deal with the matter? Within the first three months of this Bill becoming
law, on the average 5,000 cases per week will arise in the County of London alone. I think you should set up a special appeal tribunal, something of the same nature as the tribunal that has been set up by the Building Act, consisting of three people, two technical experts and a third man at the head of them, probably a lawyer. It has to be borne in mind that tills applies not only to new buildings, but to alterations or additions to existing works or buildings, and, if each one of these alterations are coining along, 5;000 cases per week is a very small estimate indeed. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether he cannot set up an impartial tribunal to deal with this matter. That would be more satisfactory to everyone concerned.
It has been said that there are not enough people in the building trade. I quite agree. And the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Chelmsford Division touched the spot when he pointed out that the Increment Value Duty is going to interfere with building under this scheme. It has a lot to do with the fact that there are very few people in the building trade at the present time. I have been in the building trade all my life and I know the facts; and many in my own employ, not the workmen particularly, but also the staff and people interested in building, went out of the trade at that time. Why is it that so much repair work needs to be done There is the waste of live years to be made up. Who are the greatest culprits in respect of repair work? The Government themselves. Their triennial contractors are full up to the hilt. They are taking men from everywhere and off every sort of building on purpose to put them on to Government repair work. The railings round the parks are being painted now. At the present time when we want to economise somewhere the Government might have stayed their hands with regard to a great many of these repairs. Many of them would not have hurt if they had been left for another year or two. They are the people who are largely employing men in the building trade I hope we shall pass this Bill. I suppose it will go to a Committee upstairs and there be amended.
The Bill is going to give us some houses, and the point is, as I advocated., both before and since I entered the House, to meet the great difficulty caused by the shortage of houses. You must get the houses, and you must pay for them. You have to pay high prices for them, and you
must do that in the interests of the safety of the country. The country demands it, and is entitled to have it. I am only echoing what has been said all round this House that one of the most essential things to get rid of the existing unrest is the provision of a sufficient number of houses. But you want these houses not only for the working classes; you want them for the middle classes as well, and as the middle classes are going to find the bulk of the money, they are people who should have some consideration at the hands of the Government. Hon. Members opposite desire to limit the houses for the labouring classes. I was successful in getting a little Amendment into a Bill upstairs in regard to the conversion of houses into flats. I should like to see the first paragraph in this Bill amended by striking out the words "for the working classes," so that there may be some idea of putting up a better class of houses, or rather a class of larger houses. Three bedrooms are not always sufficient for families. Many families want more rooms, and I am hoping that the families of the future will be larger. May I go back for one minute to the question of a subsidy? That is dealt with under three heads, one of which is the superficial floor area. It is laid down that no Grant is to be made for houses with accommodation in excess of four bedrooms, or which has a, superficial floor area in excess of 1,250 feet. I agree it is necessary in these cases to have some limit, but I would suggest that the limit should be extended, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to extend it when the Bill goes upstairs. I sincerely hope that the Bill will be passed, and that the criticisms I have made in regard to it will be looked upon not as destructive, but as calculated to improve the Bill and to secure the provision of more houses.

Mr. LANE-FOX: May I point out that this is a question of some considerable importance to rural areas? I rather object, as other speakers have done, to the attitude taken up by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, who have suggested that we on these benches do not really care whether the houses are good or bad, and that we are only interested in subsidising the building trade. That is an attitude which ought not to be adopted. I believe that every man in this House is equally anxious to deal with what is obviously a most alarming problem, and I
do not think any special claim can be made by any one section to be more in earnest on this question than any other section. It is a mistake for any hon Members to make an accusation of that sort against any other section of the House. It has been suggested that private enterprise has done badly in this matter. We all know the disastrous conditions that now exist in our great cities. We know that those conditions are largely due to the neglect of supervision by the authorities in the past. But the constitution of the local authorities has changed. Their zeal and energy are quite different. The whole system under which we live for the supervision of building has entirely altered, and suppose we hand over entirely to the local authorities the whole question, what is going to happen I The work is not. done by individual members of the local authority. They merely deal with the private builders and supervise the work which is being done. It is a question whether the private builder shall do it under the supervision of the local authority or whether. the local authority shall do it itself. Where you are bound to employ the private builder to do the work it makes no difference how you start. But, as regards the result of the work, that is entirely a matter for proper supervision by the local authorities, and I hope that the Government will not allow themselves to weaken in any shape or form by sanctioning any inferior work. Many people say they have spent pleasant hours in wooden houses in other countries. Here, again, I hope the Minister will not weaken. I am riot satisfied myself that under our climatic conditions the wooden building is desirable. Then there is another point about the subsidy. There are many people who have taken on their own shoulders the burden of trying to add to the housing accommodation of the country, and I do not see why they should not also have a share of the subsidy.
But I want to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that his main difficulty is going to arise in rural areas. In the towns they have bigger resources and more labour, and it is easier to start to deal with the problem. But in the rural areas, the situation is very different and I would suggest that it might be possible to do something in the way of encouraging the adaptation of existing buildings. I have not yet come across any authority working in that direction. In the country now there are numbers of large houses which people do not require any longer, and it
does seem to me that any enterprise which turns some of these big houses into tenements providing accommodation for a certain number of families would be of enormous advantage to the rural areas, and it might be well worth considering whether some sort of subsidy might not be granted in such cases. It is of no use being pedantic about the subsidy, we must have an immediate supply of houses, and the need is so urgent and so pressing that it is no use being bound by old-fashioned economic ideas. Then again, I want to suggest it is very essential that proper provision should be made for gardens. I do not believe there is anything like the difficulty in getting land which some hon. Members seem to think there is. Indeed the land difficulty is the one difficulty in this matter which hardly exists at all. At any rate in the areas that I know, it is the one question which does not cause any trouble, and therefore I hope the right hon. Gentleman will on every occasion insist that. there shall be proper garden accommodation for every house that is put up. We do not want any more of those dreary blocks of houses with no gardens and no amenities around them.
Another point I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider, is the delay caused by the difficulty in getting the opinions of land valuers in cases where there is a dispute as to the price of the land to be acquired. Very often because of that difficulty, schemes are held up for a considerable time. If the land valuers are so full up with work as to be unable to deal with the cases at once, could not some arrangement be made which would avoid delay in commencing the work? After all the price is only a small question, and surely there ought not to be any trouble in getting a prompt definite opinion upon it. The last point with which I wish to deal is the question of local loans. The Report issued a few days ago recommended that these local loans should be trustee securities, but there is no such provision in the Bill, and I would like to know whether it has been definitely decided not. to insist on that provision. I do not see why the Minister of Health laid so much stress on the need for getting this money locally. I agree that if it can be done, so much the better. But surely it is a fallacy to pretend that by raising the loans locally you are drawing money from sources different from those from which it is drawn by
the Government. It is the same money and the same people provide it, whether it. is invested in a local loan or a Government loan, and surely it would he much more satisfactory if the Government issued a big housing loan instead of pretending that it is the duty of the local authorities to raise the money locally. After all, the money is exactly the same, whatever the means by which it is raised, and although it may be all right for the Government to ask the people in the locality to do their best to raise the loan, it would, I think, be much better if they carried through the whole business themselves. It is absurd to talk about the extravagance of people shopping in town and suggesting that they had better put their money into local loans. Such talk does not show a correct appreciation of the enormous magnitude of this financial problem. If we can only solve the trouble about rent, and get over the other financial difficulty, then the remaining problems in connection with housing will practically solve themselves. I welcome this Bill in many ways, but I hope it will be improved very much in Committee, and at any rate I hope it will have the effect of greasing the wheels and making it easier to provide houses.

Mr. ANEURIN W1LLIAMS: I look upon this measure merely as an emergency measure, and a very small contribution to a very great problem which will go on for many years and require many measures before it is solved. As such, however, I welcome it, and am prepared to vote for its Second Reading, in spite of some criticisms that have been levelled at it. Those criticisms we can very properly deal with in Committee. Some of them, undoubtedly, are not without great force. I would like, however, to refer to one which we have just heard from the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Lorden), who, if I understood him rightly, suggested that the Clause against "luxury building" might stop the building of houses for the middle classes. As I read the Clause it could not have that effect, for it is only if the local authority consider that the provision of dwelling-house accommodation is being interfered with that they can intervene. If there is any other pars of the Clause that would have the effect of stopping building for the middle classes, I should certainly very strongly object to it, because wherever you build, whether for the middle classes or for artisan classes, it all relieves the pressure upon housing. All
those classes have equal rights to houses according to their own standard, and whichever one you build for it relieves the pressure on the housing of the poorest and most unfortunate class. It is excessively difficult to build for them, under whatever scheme you may do so, but if you build for those who can afford to pay for houses it increases the total supply, and houses are vacated which become useful for those for whom it would be practically impossible to build directly.
I feel very strongly that an Amendment will be required in this Bill, or perhaps I should say in the Rules that are proposed to be issued under it, with regard to allowing twenty houses to the acre. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing this Bill, rather spoke, I thought, as if twenty was to be the outside number, and that only in exceptional cases. I do not read the Regulation in that way at all. We are told that the number of houses to the acre will be limited generally, as in the case of local authorities' schemes, but it goes on to say that it will not be allowed to exceed twenty to the acre in urban areas except in special circumstances; so that in cases which are not special it will be allowed to exceed twenty to the acre in urban areas. That, I think, is very objectionable. It goes on to say, "in special circumstances and with the express concurrence of the Minister," so that I take it that in urban areas the number may be allowed to exceed twenty to the acre without the circumstances being special and without the express concurrence of the Minister. If that is intended, I for one shall make a very strong effort to get that altered when we come to the Committee stage. I think that if there is one thing clearer than another it is that the modern plan of putting cottages widely spread over an area, with a garden to each cottage, has a most wonderful effect both on the happiness of life and on the health and well-being of the inhabitants. I would point out the low death-rate in all garden suburbs where the open order is adopted. The first garden city, at Letchworth, is able to show a death-rate of only 10 per 1,000, and an infantile mortality of only 30 per 1,000. That is not due to a low birth rate, because the birth-rate was 17½ per 1,000
I hope to speak chiefly on those parts of the subject in connection with which I have myself had experience, namely, with regard to public utility societies and with regard to the laying out and building of
garden cities and garden suburbs, all of which are mentioned in this Bill and in the White Paper. With regard to public utility societies, I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Bill, practically admitted that ordinary public utility societies were doing very little under the main Bill. Practically, he said that where public utility societies were coining in, as they were to a considerable extent, it was chiefly that employers of labour, needing houses for their employés, were forming public utility societies and finding the capital, knowing that they would get no direct return, or only very little, on that capital, but having the indirect advantage of obtaining housing accommodation for their employés, and so being able to get on with their work. That is quite honest business, and I have nothing to say against it, but it is not the work of public utility societies in the sense in which it was conceived by those who originally started them. I think it is not the best work that public utility societies can do, for that is to provide cottages at cost price for the inhabitants of the town, village or suburb generally, and not for the purpose of any one particular business enterprise. The old terms offered in the main Bill have therefore not been sufficient to induce the ordinary, or, as I may call it, the real public utility society to come in to any very great extent. I am very much afraid that the new terms which are offered will not materially affect the matter. The old terms were practically a gift to the public utility society of 30 per cent. of the cost. It was in the form of a rebate of 30 per cent. upon the annual charges. That 30 per cent. is no to be increased to 50 per cent. for the first seven years, and that, according to the White Paper, is calculated to amount to £100,000 a year on 10,000 houses, or £10 a house. Ten pounds a year for seven years is practically equivalent to something between £50 and £60 down, so that the extra inducement offered to public utility societies under this Bill is a matter of £50 or £60 per house. I am very much afraid that that will not induce the ordinary or real public utility society to come in at all, because it will not by any means meet the loss which the public utility society will be bound to incur in building houses and letting them to the public at the present time. I know that some societies have gone into the matter carefully, and have found that it is perfectly hopeless to do it with the 30 per cent., and I am convinced
that the extra £30 or £60 will not nearly make up the difference. As the real public utility society makes no profit, but merely works at cost price, it cannot afford to take risks, much less build with the certainty of a loss. I am convinced, nevertheless, that these societies would do an immense work if the terms were made such as to attract them. They have great advantages over the local authorities, the main one being, I think, that they can work much more rapidly. We want the goods delivered; we want the houses in thousands, and I venture to think that we can get them by offering to public utility societies the same or at least as good terms as are being offered to local authorities.
On the question generally, I very much doubt whether this problem can be solved on the basis of divided responsibility. We have the local authority and the Ministry of Health dividing power, financial risk, and responsibility. The whole matter is divided at every point and in every Department, and the result is a great deal of friction and delay. I am bound to say that the local authorities in my district are loud in their complaints of the difficulties and obstacles that are put in their way by the Ministry of Health. I do not mean to suggest that those obstacles are put in their way wilfully; it is due to the amount of reference backwards and forwards, the amount of misunderstanding as to whether a plan has been approved or not, or as to what change exactly is wanted, to correspondence, and to visits, to uncertainty as to whether they can get the money or will have to raise it themselves, and as to what is going to happen after the first seven years. All of these cause serious and lamentable delays. It is nobody's fault in particular; it is the inevitable result of divided responsibility in a matter of this sort. From that I draw the conclusion that what we want is a great housing Department to do the work. I will develop that, but I want first of all to give another reason why I think that is necessary. I look upon this business of subsidies as entirely unsound. Whether they are subsidies given by the central State to the local authorities or to public utility societies or to the private builder, I regard them as entirely unsound in principle and bad in practice. But we are at present in a great crisis and great emergency. We must get the houses by hook or by crook almost, and therefore we have to resort to these subsidies, but I am sure that they are unsound, and that what we want
is a great central Housing Department, not to compel other people to do the work or to bribe other people to do it, but to carry out treat experiments as to the best arid cheapest methods of housing, to see now far machinery and standardisation may be introduced, and so on, and to have great powers of building—to build themselves on a large scale, and to buy land and lay it out and develop garden cities and garden suburbs. My own experience over many years leads me to think that private enterprise will never do this properly, nor will it be done by voluntary associations, nor by the Government merely Con trolling and interfering and bribing. The Government Central Department must do the thing itself I do not believe for a moment that that will kill private enterprise in the building trade if, when you have built your houses, you let them at an economic rent. I am convinced that yon must come to that. You cannot go on for ever making a heavy loss and putting it upon the Income Tax, or some other source of revenue. I know that we cannot come to this economic rent at once, but only gradually. Still, is the ideal towards which we have to move, and until we do conic to that, and make the actual occupier of the house pay, the Central Government has to pay the less, and, to my mind, the best way of doing that would be for the Government to have a great central building Department for the purpose.
8.0 P.M.
I repeat that this Bill is, to my mind, an emergency contribution to this problem. It is by no means the last Bill that we shall have on this subject. I look forward to many more, and I am convinced that the final solution will be that, as I have said, the house will have to be let at an economic rent, wages will have to be enough to pay that rent, and there will have to be a great central Department, not to destroy private enterprise, but to tackle that: part of the horsing problem, and particularly the town planning problem, which private enterprise will never be able to deal with. I would point out that, speaking roughly and subject to some exceptions, there is no part of the country, and there never has been in my lifetime, where the labouring classes—I do not mean the skilled artisans—have been decently housed by private enterprise. I see no evidence that private enterprise ever will do it. Voluntary association might when people are a little more educated, but I can see no evidence
whatever that private enterprise will do it. Another thing that private enterprise never has done in my experience, and never will do, in my opinion, is the proper laying out of our towns. We get so far as to have rules and regulations about town-planning. That looks very well, but it amounts to this: You tell the people, "You shall not do it unless you do it so and so." They answer, "Then we will not do it at all." If you want it well done the State has got to take that up, and I am very glad that there is in this Bill a Clause which helps us on the road to the State taking a more active part in laying out our towns on garden cities and garden suburb lines. I hope we shall not spoil that contribution to the subject by admitting into this Bill provisions which will allow houses to be put twenty to the acre, and even more, as the Bill seems to propose, and that is the most serious blemish upon it.

Mr. HOHLER: I welcome the Bill. No one tikes a subsidy, but in the position in which we are it is far cheaper to do this if it is productive of building houses than what we are doing in regard to the rates. The State has to pay an enormous subsidy to the rates for the purpose of these buildings. Let us look at the position in regard to building at present. A building owner has no staff of his own, and has to go to a contractor. I believe the builders, when they were invited to tender, guarded themselves against every eventuality such as rises of wages or prices. A builder said to himself, "I cannot, if things become unreasonable and outrageous, say I will not continue this contract; I have to go on, no matter to what price the prices of the articles I require rise." It may well be that houses may be built at a price which will enable them to be let at a reasonable rent. I think it is much more likely to approximate to it than anything that has been done under the Housing Act. Further, there is a great number of workmen who have saved money, or could borrow it from building societies, who will avail themselves of this subsidy in order to build their own houses. I therefore hope there will be a great deal of money forthcoming from these private and comparatively small but untapped sources. Local authorities are in great difficulties, not because they are unwilling to go on with their contracts, but because of the question of finance.
The rate of money is very high, and who is going to find it? I gather the Government fully appreciate the difficulty. They have put in a most useful provision that local authorities may borrow at 5½ per cent. I do not think they will get the money at that price. A few days ago you could buy 5 per Cent. War Bonds to be paid off in 1919 or 1920 for 97, so I doubt if they could borrow money at 5½ per cent. The Government realises the difficulty, and gives them notice to borrow money locally if they can, but I doubt if they can avail themselves of it, but I welcome the Bill calling for assistance from every possible source. Get the money if you can, but get on with what we are faced with, this shortage of houses.
Something has been said in regard to building material. I wanted to take advantage of Section 23 of the Housing Act, so I applied on 28th September to the Ministry of Health for a schedule of prices and for the general Regulations with a view to getting materials. I thought I could get them more reasonably than in the open market. I was referred to the Director of Building Materials, who ultimately wrote me that no Regulations had been issued. They were not issued until 12th November. The Bill was passed early in August, and Parliament provided £10,000,000 in order that. materials might be bought, so as to enable anyone to build at a reasonable rate. But it was worse than that. The only value of that Section was not that the builder should take advantage of it, but the building owner, whether a local authority or a private builder. What the building owner required was a schedule of prices issued by the Department, saying, "We can provide such-and-such materials at such-and-such cost." On that the architect will have put into his estimates bricks, cement, fireplaces, anything you like, "allow so much prime cost,"and the building owner would have made his arrangement with the Government. As it is, it is of no advantage to the local authority or the building owner. The only man who can possibly put money into his pocket over it is the builder. I ask the hon. Gentleman to see that in regard to this subsidy there is no mistake and no doubt, and to see that the whole terms upon which the subsidy is given appear in the Bill.
The White Paper contains conditions in regard to only twenty houses to the acre. I find no such condition in the Bill. A
man may acquire a building plot which does not comply with this condition of twenty to the acre, and build a house on the faith of getting a Government subsidy and then find that he cannot get it. That would be a lamentable thing. I ask that these provisions should appear clearly in the Bill, in order that people may know the conditions under which they are building, and know that if they comply with the conditions they will get the subsidy. I cannot agree with the arguments of the opponents of the Bill. I do not find in it anything to encourage bad building. I think it goes further than anything that exists now to secure good building. Not only have you to build in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the Ministry of Health, but you have to get a certificate that the building has been done in a good and workmanlike manner. You cannot have anything very much better than that; I have always understood that if I were a building owner and employed a builder I only pay on the architect's certificate that the building was done in a good and workmanlike manner. I do not understand what more is required. The suggestions in regard to this being a bad class of house are unfounded. I protest against the notion that this subsidy should be given in respect of any house with fewer than three bedrooms. It seems to me to be absolutely essential in any house built now, in which public funds play any part, that there should be three bedrooms. There may be reasons which do not occur to me why it is right and proper that a subsidy should be offered for houses with fewer than three bedrooms; if so, I should like an explanation of the reasons for the provision in the Bill.

It being a quarter past eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Mean under Standing Order N0 3, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question, put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

GREENOCK IMPROVEMENT ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords] (by Order).

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—[Mr Munro.]

Mr. A. SHAW: Since this Bill last appeared on the Order Paper for Third Reading certain developments have taken place. When the Bill was considered by a Commission of both Houses there still remained two objections, one of a practical and the other of a sentimental character. The practical objection was really not involved in the Bill itself. It was that the Harbour Trust, who in a sense were parties to the Bill, had closed up a right of way which was not upon any particular ground covered by the Bill, but which has been used in the past by the public, and from which the public are now excluded. That has caused great indignation in Greenock. An indignation meeting was held, I think, last week, but, happily, according to my information, the Harbour Trustees have agreed to open a right of way which will serve the same purpose of giving easy access to the Princes Pier. If that is so, that objection, which is really not an objection to the Bill, and has nothing to do with the terms of the Bill, is disposed of. The second objection was of a sentimental character, but none the less important for that reason. It arose from the fact that the improvement in the Bill was associated with an extension of the shipyard owned by Messrs. Caird, but now owned by Messrs. Harland and Wolff. Unfortunately, the proposed extension involves the carrying of the shipyards over the ground now covered by the North Parish Church of Greenock and the graveyard of that church. I believe that the objections of the church authorities and of the lair holders were met, and I am not concerned with that. In the churchyard there is the grave of one who is popular in Scottish song, and her grave is associated with some of Burns' most touching lyrics. Of her Burns wrote those famous lines beginning:—
Thou lingering star, with lessening ray,
That lov'st to greet the early morn.
Naturally, the Burns lovers in Scotland and elsewhere feel about this matter much as the people South of the Tweed would feel if a great commercial enterprise were to start an attack upon some spot sacred to the memory of Shakespeare. I do not think that the Burns Federation, which is a great body representing nearly 300 Burns clubs, in every country in the world, took up an unreasonable attitude. The problem really was to reconcile in Greenock the advance of civic and industrial improvement with respect to spots which are held sacred by
tradition. It was, in fact, the old problem of the irresistible force and the immovable mass. In this case, fortunately or unfortunately, the great personality of a Noble Lord (Lord Pirric) was associated with the irresistible force, and before the Commission of both Houses the irresistible force came out on top. We have passed that stage now. Those who were exponents of the Burns position, unfortunately, did not take the technical steps necessary to make good their case when this Bill was in the other House. Seriously, considering all the points, after reading the Bill very carefully I am convinced that this Bill embodies a vast public improvement in Greenock. It sweeps away a bad slum area. It improves in many respects the amenities of the town. It involves the creation of new houses. It involves the straightening of streets, and in every way it is probably the greatest improvement in the town of Greenock for a century. Those of us who have been objecting to this Bill on behalf of the Burns Federation do not wish to stand in the way of the citizens of Greenock enjoying all these public advantages, and I beg to say, after going into the matter very carefully, that I am satisfied that the promoters have done all in their power to meet the reasonable sentiments of the Burns Federation. I am authorised to state that, in addition to leaving the grave of Highland Mary undisturbed, and turning the monument round so as to face the road, they now offer to put up another suitable monument on some site more readily accessible to the public, and are willing to discuss the details of that monument and its position with the Burns Federation. In these circumstances I do not feel that those of us who are associated with the Burns position are justified in further opposition.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Can the hon. Member tell the House in what Parliamentary way he proposes that that undertaking should be given and how it can be made good?

Mr. SHAW: This undertaking emanates from a firm of the great probity and eminence of Messrs. Harland and Wolff, and anybody who knows anything about their record end their work will believe that the undertaking will be honoured not only in the letter but in the spirit, and that the monument to be erected will be adequate in every way to the requirements of the situation. In these cir-
cumstances those of us who have been opposing this Bill do not feel that we would be justified in pressing our opposition any further.

Mr. ADAMSON: I regret that there should be the necessity of a single word being said against this Bill. So far as I can ascertain there is no section of the community at Greenock but are of the opinion that the Bill would confer a benefit upon the town and citizens of Greenock; but before the Bill is read the third time they feel that they should have some assurance upon the question of the right of way which has been in dispute between the Greenock Harbour Trust on the one hand and the citizens of Greenock on the other. I understand that the Provost of Greenock has intimated to-day that the Greenock Harbour Trust are prepared to open the barricade on the disputed right of way as a privilege for a certain number of hours in the day. A certain section of the people of Greenock are not satisfied with that compromise offered by the Provost on behalf of the Harbour Trust, and they have sent word that the Third Reading should be opposed until a satisfactory arrangement is come to with regard to this right of way. I understand that the right of way has been used by the people of Greenock for a long series of years and that there can be no question of its continued use up to the time when it was closed for a few years as a war measure. The inhabitants of Greenock readily acquiesced in the road being closed as a war measure. Like every section of the people of the Kingdom they were quite prepared for any step being taken that would enable this country to get over its difficulties during the War, but now that the War is ended they have been putting in their claim for this right of way being reopened, and the Harbour Trust has been opposing the reopening of this right of way. This question has been discussed by the Provost of the town on behalf of the citizens and the representatives of the Harbour Trust, and a compromise has been offered, by which the right of way is to be opened as a privilege during certain hours of the day. I do not know whether the Secretary for Scotland is in a position to give us a satisfactory assurance that this question can be settled satisfactorily without the necessity of costly litigation. He may tell us that the question of a right of way has no con-
nection with this matter, and there may be a certain amount of truth in that statement, but the people of Greenock—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): Do I understand that what is contained in this Bill bas nothing to do with the right of way?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): That is so.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If that is the case, it is not competent for the hon. Member to discuss the subject

Mr. MUNRO: The question which my right hon. Friend desires to raise is entirely foreign to this measure. The right of way is not dealt with in any part of the Bill, and my right hon. Friend desires to exercise what I regard as an abuse of Parliamentary procedure in order to bring indirect pressure to bear upon the promoters of this measure to secure their way. Whereas if he is right in his content on the Law Courts are open to him, and he will succeed and get costs against the unsuccessful party.

Mr. DEPUTY -SPEAKER: Then, clearly, this falls within the ruling of several Speakers, which I have in my mind, that whereas on the Second Reading of private Bills, matters may be dealt with that affect the way in which others have used their previous powers, that does not apply to the Third Reading of the Bill. On the Third Reading you may deal only with matters absolutely contained in the Bill.

Mr. ADAMSON: The only aspect of this question with which I wanted to deal was the point of view that the Bill confers upon the Greenock Harbour Trust certain substantial advantages which they have had through the agreement come to between them and the people of Greenock, and a large section of the community of Greenock are very anxious that before the House parts with this Bill they should at least be willing to do what is asked, namely, to make satisfactory arrangements so far as this right of way is concerned. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs has dealt fully with the sentimental objection offered in the earlier stages of the Bill, as to which I am quite satisfied, and I only raise this point for the purpose of discovering whether the Secretary for Scotland can give us an assurance on behalf of the interested parties that a satisfactory arrangement can be arrived at -without costly litigation.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must make it quite clear that so far as the right of way is concerned it is too late to raise that question on the Third Reading of the Bill. On the Second Reading it might possibly have been done—I do not express any opinion as to that—but not on the Third Reading.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I desire only to refer briefly to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs. Of course, his constituency is the moving and living centre of Burns' lore—or one of the centres—and what I wish to make clear is the Parliamentary position in connection with the undertaking which he has given. We have arrived at the final stage of the Bill. The proper course would have been to bring this matter before the Committee which sat in Glasgow, when the Bill was discussed there, and there was even after that another opportunity, by way of petitioning either House of Parliament. But that step was not taken from lack of knowledge of the methods of procedure in Parliament. Therefore, we are left with the undertaking given on the floor of this House on the Third Reading of the Bill. Undertakings of that kind have always been honoured, and in consonance with Parliamentary procedure, and the traditions linked with the very high standard of the Noble Lord to whom my hon. Friend referred, there can be no doubt that the undertaking which he has given will be honoured fully, not only in the letter, but in the spirit.

Mr. STURROCK: As one of those who had the honour to sit on the Committee inquiring into this particular question of the graveyard in Greenock, in regard to the question raised by my hon. Friend opposite, it is perfectly clear that no Scotsman in this House or anywhere else would ever wish to do anything in any degree disrespectful to the memory of Robert Burns. But I do feel that it is a little late in the day to raise objection to this Bill on the score that it is going to disturb Highland Mary's grave. One of the most conclusive arguments in favour of this Bill was brought forward, not by the Noble Lord to whom allusion was made, but another Noble Lord, and the evidence that was given by those two peers who came into Court in the matter was emphatically in favour of the immediate development of the shipyard which happens to entrench upon the ancient graveyard. As regards what has been said in
reference to safeguarding the honour of Highland Mary, it is true that Lord Pirrie made what I consider a most ample promise in reference to doing all that could possibly be done, not only to safeguard the actual grave, but also to alter the gravestone, so that no section of Scottish feeling could possibly be outraged. We went into the evidence very fully. We had a vast amount of evidence offered in favour of this new industrial development, and the most impressive evidence came from a public-spirited citizen of Greenock who is the chairman or president of the local Burghs Federation. Any man or woman who knows the local circumstances would never for a moment admit that there was any damage being done to any memory associated with Burns, or that, even if it were true that sentiment was being to some degree disturbed, the question of the industrial development of Greenock could be allowed to be hampered by any such association. I think we ought to realise that the taking of the old graveyard is essential to the industrial welfare of Greenock, is demanded by the great bulk of the people of Greenock, and by its most responsible citizens, and is objected to, if I may say so with respect, only by a few cranks and faddists who do not understand how much they are allowing a perfectly sincere fanaticism to stand in the way of the best interests of the town. As regards the right of way, to which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson) referred, I cannot recall that there was a single word mentioned on that point during the sittings of the Commission.

Mr. MUNRO: There have been two objections taken to this Bill. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. A. Shaw) has very accurately described them as sentimental and practical. I do not say that the sentimental objection was not a very important one. It received full consideration from the tribunal which sat in Glasgow. It has been said that the matter could have been raised in two ways—in Committee and by petition to the House of Lords—but the hon. Member may not be aware that this matter was very pointedly raised during the inquiry in Glasgow, that the Burns interests were represented on that occasion by counsel, and that an arrangement was come to between counsel who represented the objectors and counsel who represented the promoters. In fact it was the chief sub-
ject discussed during the four days' inquiry. Counsel for the objectors declared themselves perfectly satisfied. Accordingly, that undertaking, supplemented as it now is by an undertaking in the House, which my right hon. Friend has rightly said must be regarded as entirely satisfactory, I think disposes of the first objection. All parties, I take it, are now satisfied that no detriment will be done to this sacred site, and that the arrangements agreed to will amply protect any feeling that may have been raised. The other objection was the practical objection. I am not quite sure I am entitled to deal with it, seeing that you have ruled that it is not in order on Third Reading to take such an objection. May I say, however, that it seems to me indefensible that anyone should endeavour to block an important scheme of housing reform—a scheme, moreover, which must involve a large extension of the trade and employment of Greenock—on a side issue of this kind. It is a scheme which will obviously mean thousands of pounds of additional wages, possibly millions, as the years go on.

Mr. ADAMSON: I have already said that.

Mr. MUNRO: The right hon. Gentleman is taking a very exceptional and unwarranted course in endeavouring to destroy a scheme. so fraught with benefit to the community at large, and to those in particular in whom he is interested, and therefore I appeal to him to withdraw any opposition. For the Harbour Trust I am unable to give any sort of undertaking. The Harbour Trust are acting under an Act of Parliament under which they conceive they have no right to give any such undertaking as is asked for. The remedy is in the law. If there is a right of way, that right can be established in the Law Courts, and every penny of expense the right hon. Gentleman is put to will be disgorged by his unsuccessful opponent. I submit that one objection to the Bill has been removed by agreement, and that, as the other objection is really out of order, the House might be disposed now to give a Third Reading to this Bill.

Mr. J. JOHNSTONE: I know Greenock well. It is a very congested town, although the west end is one of the most beautiful to be found in the West of Scotland. In the centre of the town, where the shipbuilding yard is situated, it is most congested. I should like to point out that
this proposal to extend the shipbuilding yard will produce one of the greatest improvements from which any town could benefit. It will clear away slums of the worst possible description. A new housing scheme is being promoted which will be of enormous advantage to the working classes of Greenock. Some of the roads in Greenock are very narrow. This scheme will mean a great improvement of roads. There is another argument which should appeal to my right hon. Friend. At present this yard is able to build ships up to only 500 feet in length. With the extension of the yard it will be possible to build ships up to 750 feet in length, and I am advised that the popular standard ship for cargo carrying is about 700 feet in length. At present there are about 2,000 men employed in this yard. When the yard is extended there will be no fewer than 9,000 employed. It is proposed to lay down six new launching berths, at great cost. At the same time the shipyard authorities are going to contribute to the Greenock municipal authorities a sum of, I believe, £10,000 to improve the transport facilities of the town, either by trains or motor 'buses, so that working men living at a distance may be brought into the town. I think all that goes to show that those who are promoting this measure and the shipbuilding firm are doing their utmost for the benefit of the town, for the working classes, and for the amenities of the town. I yield to no one in my love and admiration of the poet Burns, and now that the promoters of the Bill are making arrangements for the preservation of Highland Mary's grave, I think, considering all the benefits that will accrue to the town, that my right hon. Friend opposite should withdraw his objection to the Third Reading.

Colonel GREIG: I should not have intervened in this Debate but I stand in a peculiar position with regard to Greenock owing to the regrettable illness of our colleague, the Member for that City (Sir G. Collins). In his absence I have been authorised to act for him in any matter affecting the interests of Greenock. It is only right that I should say that I knew that everything would be covered by those who spoke in favour of the scheme. I approach it from an entirely impartial point of view, and I have come to the conclusion as I found the facts, and having regard to the sentimental considerations which have been fairly and honourably met, and having regard to the fact that
this great public improvement will get rid of slum areas in the town, and that adequate arrangements are being made elsewhere by the great building schemes which are proceeding, that I am perfectly right in saying, on behalf of the corporation and trustees of the Harbour, for whom at the moment I am in the position of being spokesman, that they hope that the House give a Third Reading to the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment to Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Captain HACKING: When the Housing. Bill was introduced on Second Reading by the Minister of Health, I made an interjection and asked if the grant applied to public utility societies, and I am very glad that it does, because I have always believed that public utility societies would be the salvation of the housing scheme. The reason why not many houses have been built in the past by such societies has been, I think, the tremendous amount of red tape in the Ministry of Health. When I say red tape I mean in a polite sense to this extent. The Regulations with regard to housing have been very much delayed, and that delay has meant that the big firms in the country who were quite willing to form themselves into public utility societies to build houses have not dared to venture On such undertakings until they had full particulars. Those particulars have been pressed for on many occasions, and especially in connection with the powers they would have to dispose of the houses when once built. I understand now from the White Paper, only produced to-day, that there will be no Regulations to prevent the houses, when they are built by a public utility society, being sold to anybody they care to sell them to or being let to anybody they care to let them to. In other words, if a largo society, a large firm, cares to build houses for its own employés it will be allowed to let those houses to the employés. I want to be quite clear on that point as that will
induce a great number of firms to form themselves into public utility societies. I should like to know definitely whether there are any more Regulations going to be published in connection with this new Bill, or any more conditions issued which might hinder a society from going on with this work. It would be very hard on any large firm which had been induced under the conditions laid down here to start building operations if it found when it got half way through that fresh Regulations were published. I agree with an hon. Member opposite that it is a pity that the Regulations are not embodied in the Bill itself, because almost every Bill of this character can be provided afterwards with Regulations which absolutely nullify the original intention of the Bill. Therefore, I would like to know if the Government have really published in this White Paper all the restrictions necessary for the carrying out of these housing schemes. If the grant of from £130 to £160 is applicable to the public utility societies as we are informed it is, I presume such a society would have the choice now of coming under this scheme and having the lump sum grant or of resorting to the old conditions as under the original Act.

Dr. ADDISON: That is a very important point, and I hope the hon. Member will understand that no society will receive a grant under the new set of conditions in respect of the same house.

Captain HACKING: Quite; I did not expect that the Government would be generous to that extent. Will the societies have the choice of coming under either the new Regulations of the grant or under the old Regulations of the original Act? I do not suppose any of them would take the conditions of the old Act and that if they had the choice they would naturally prefer the grant of from £130 to £150. Such being the case, I think it is a pity that the Minister of Health has stated that he will not allow the public utilty society which has already started its work under the old Act to change on to the new conditions. In other words, the society which was wishful to help the Minister and to get houses for the country, and started its work in face of the fact that it was bound to suffer loss on the building of those houses, is going to be crippled and jeopardised by not being allowed to change on to the new conditions. The society which has been
patriotic in this respect is going to suffer, while the society which has held back is now going to benefit under these new conditions. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision on that point. There are several points which I do not know, if I would he in order in mentioning, although I think I could raise them by saying that I am sorry they are not embodied in the Bill. There are Regulations at present in operation whereby local authorities can actually take over a completed house. I think it is rather a pity that such Regulations are not extended to a public utility society. I know of some firms who are wishful to take over houses which are already completed, and they are not allowed to do so, because they have not the same opportunities and they are not under the same conditions as a local authority is. Another point is that I wish something had been stated in this Bill with regard to the question of rating as it affects subsidised houses. It is a. question which has often been raised, and I believe has been under the consideration of the Minister of Health. It would be unfair to base ratings on the same system, in the one case having a subsidised house and in the other case having a house which is not subsidised, and I think that point ought to have very careful consideration.
9.0 P.M.
An hon. Member who spoke from the Labour Benches (Mr. W. Graham) this afternoon mentioned the system of dilution, and naturally from his point of view he opposed such a system, but we were told by the Prime Minister only a few days ago that there were no builders left in the country. He said that the builders were depleted by 200,000 men, and that there were not sufficient builders left to continue the schemes under the Housing Act. If such is the case, I certainly think the system of dilution ought to be very carefully considered. Apparently all available trade labour is already employed, and we had a system of dilution during the War in the engineering trade, which was certainly an emergency measure, but an emergency exists to-day in the building trade, and if it was essential during the War to have a system of dilution in the engineering trade, I think it is just as necessary to have it in the building trade to-day, as the national emergency still exists. The right hon. Baronet who sits for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Sir Tudor Walters) knows that I have been pressing for a long time, with
regard to the £150 Grant, to try and get a lump sum granted instead of having it spread over a number of years, and I am glad that at last this has been agreed to by the Government. I can assure the Government from several firms in my Constituency that they are delighted to have the opportunity of accepting this lump sum Grant in preference to the other form of the subsidy spread over a great number of years. It means that they will be able to get rid of the houses to their employés, who are most anxious to buy, and it has a lot of other advantages, amongst which is that the firm which does not wish to remain a public utility society for the next fifty years, say, can build its houses, can get rid of them, and can settle down to its ordinary everyday business again. I was more than delighted when I saw how few Regulations had been published up to now. I do hope that no more will be published, and that nothing will be put down on paper to prevent houses being built by the societies I have mentioned. We have had quite enough paper in the past. The Minister himself upstairs said we could not build houses on paper. I believe that is quite true, but really the amount of paper that has been seen in connection with these housing schemes, if it could all be collected and compressed into blocks, in the same way as paper is compressed for railway carriage wheels, I believe you would have sufficient bricks to build the next 100,000 houses with, and, moreover, as all that paper has been bound with tape of the appropriate colour, I think the bricks would probably be also of the correct shade.

Sir PETER GRIGGS (indistinctly heard): As a county councillor and as an urban councillor for many years, I must say that I do not see how the local councils are going to make up the housing shortage very quickly. If you are going to rely on them, I think you will have to wait for most of your houses for some time, for many of them are finding great difficulty in obtaining reasonable tenders. If the Minister of Health wants to get building done quickly, he must try to regain the confidence of the private builder who has done the work before. If you can regain his confidence you will soon make up the shortage, but they have lost that confidence. You took away their profit by the 1909 Act, by the Increment Duty and the Undeveloped Land Tax, where they made any, and left them to make up any losses
on buildings when made. There seems to be an opinion in this house that this is a very good thing for the private builder. Several of them have already been to me asking for my opinion, and they have given me their thoughts on the matter. They say, "What have we to do in only twelve months? We have to find new plant, scaffold poles, scaffold boards, and many other things, and we shall have to buy them very expensively, for they are very dear, and we shall not get to work, with all our plans to prepare and consents obtained, before March or April, and in the end, when we have settled down and our workmen are at work and they are rather far away from a town, those men may all be drawn away for a little better pay or for less travelling or other inducement. Some of them do not seem inclined to carry on unless they have a longer term to do the work in.
If their houses are not finished in twelve months, the subsidy is curtailed, or perhaps none is given to them at all. That is not the way you are going to make up the shortage quickly. But if you give them some extension of time, then, I believe, they will come along with their building. You must give them a chance of profit, and when you remember that building material is exceedingly costly and houses are costing nearly three times as much as they did, £150 or thereabouts is not going to be a very great help. If you can give them more time, I think they will come in, but unless you do that they will stay out. Then they are afraid that the local authorities will enter into undue competition, as they have better terms and larger subsidies. Builders and companies at the present time own a very large amount of building land. They have spent a large amount of money on sewers and roads, and if you can only give them confidence to go on, a large number of houses will soon spring up. I have just had a letter from a builder saying that he has got about 50 acres of land on which he has just started putting up the brickwork of some houses, and he supposes that he will have to pull it down again to enable him to come into the subsidy, for they must be begun after the passing of the Act to obtain it. That will lead to some little delay, unless it is possible to bring houses commenced within the last month or two within the terms of the subsidy. There are points which are worth thinking about, because the private builder's work will be much less costly than that of the local
authorities, seeing that after the £150 you are having no further liabilities whatever. The houses are badly wanted and every effort should be made to obtain them.

Sir T. WALTERS: It has come as a complete surprise to me, in the course of this Debate, to discover that some of my hon. Friends regard the two Bills that have been submitted, the first, which is now the Housing and Town Planning Act, and the Bill before us to-night, as in sonic degree antagonistic Bills. The Mover and Seconder of the Motion for the rejection appeared to think that we had two rival schemes submitted to the House, that the Minister of Health had originally conceived one method by which the housing difficulty could be dealt with. and then, forsooth, that he had tried that method, and that it had failed, and that he had come to the House to-night with a new and fresh proposal which was itself destructive of his original measure. A more entirely illusive view of the present position is almost impossbile to conceive, I believe that these two methods are part of the same comprehensive scheme, that the proposals which are submitted to-day are a natural corollary of the measure which we passed in the Housing and Town Planning Act in the early part of the year. The Mover of the Motion for the rejection, who has always been a very good friend of housing reform, who has always taken very enlightened views, and to whom we are very much indebted—every housing reformer regards him as a colleague and a helper—to-night really ventures to suggest that he has been reading into the original Act all sorts of purposes and intentions that were never there. If I understand his speech aright. he appears to read into the Housing and Town Planning Act, of which we are all still very proud, and with which the name of my right hon. Friend will always be honourably associated, the suggestion that it imposes upon the local authority the building of all the working men's houses that are going to be built both this year and next year and for all time. I followed that Bill pretty closely. I took a modest part in the Debates both in the House and Committee stages. I had something to do with the sittings of the Committee and the Report that was issued on which very important sections of that measure were based, It never entered into my head to suppose that I was taking part in framing a measure that
imposed upon local authorities the building of all the working-class houses required in these Islands for all time. Such a position seems to me ridiculous and absurd, and just, see what it would mean to the Exchequer. I do not want to weary the House with figures. We are talking about a shortage of houses to the number of 500,000, and others talk of 1,000,000. The proposal is that 200.000 houses should be built per annum. Is it seriously suggested that the unfortunate local authorities in this country have themselves got to build 200,000 houses a year for five years? Supposing them to cost £1,000 each, they would have to raise and spend £1,000,000,000. It is a mere matter of arithmetic to find out how many years it would take to pay off an expenditure to that extent.
I have never placed such an interpretation upon it. Had I done so, I should certain'y have done my best to dissipate it while the Hill was under discussion. I do not think that was the last intention. Let us go back historically to what took place. It is an extraordinary thing how everyone who is criticising the conduct of the Ministry of Health fails to put himself back to the position of a few months ago, and is always reading what we ought to have done then in the present position at which we have now arrived. What was the position of the housing question when my right hon. Friend was called upon to deal with it? The position was this. All housing enterprise was paralysed. There was no output of material and no organisation of labour, and it was impossible for any one to begin without long preparation. There was not only the paralysis of the War, but the pre-war paralysis, and we were all conscious that, not only building had to be commenced, but when we did commence again we would commence on wiser and better lines. My right hon. Friend, I think with great prescience and wisdom, decided that the measure to be submitted to this House should deal first of all with the general survey of housing conditions, that is, to impose upon local authorities responsibilities which had never been imposed upon them before, not actually to build these houses, but to see that adequate housing accommodation was provided in their various districts, and they are just as much discharging that obligation by organising enterprise and seeing that work is being done as by actually doing it themselves. The object
certainly was to take a survey of the situation, and to organise and arrange the work so that it should not be carried on in the old haphazard way, but on proper lines and with adequate preparation.
It was then decided. that we should lay down standards for houses. I am proud of those standards. I did my part in assisting to frame them. I regard the little work I did in that direction as the best work I have ever done in public life. I would never do anything or take any steps that would undo that work, or lower the high standard, or make it possible for us to revert to the old haphazard and chaotic methods of the past. After having framed that policy and embodied it in the Housing and Town Planning Act, then comes the question of administration. We had to go very carefully about this. There was no suggestion at the beginning of the scheme of any subsidy for private enterprise, because private enterprise at that time did not exist. I suggest, however, that it may be seen by a very superficial and casual perusal of the Bill that we had this in contemplation from the very commencement. There are various sections of the Act which deal quite clearly with the measures that it is possible to devise for getting private enterprise into the work. We have arrangements by which the local authorities may acquire land and lay it out for themselves, and we have arrangements with which local authorities can buy houses from private speculators, and these latter may build and sell to the local authorities. If the Act is read carefully it will be seen it is to be the framework, the commencement of the organisation of a broad and comprehensive policy for dealing with the great housing necessities of the country.
Therefore, I venture to suggest that when, after a few months have elapsed, and private building again becomes possible, when men are demobilised from the Army, when builders and contractors have been able to organise their stocks, it is only a step forward that we should now endeavour to supplement the building operations of the local authorities by inviting private enterprise to come in and render direct assistance. I should be very much surprised, too, if this Bill is the last word on the matter. There will be development, and we shall find, possibly, that there are other agencies and instrumentalities of which it will be our bounden
duty to make use. One timing is to be avoided, and that is spending our strength in putting up rival doctrinaire schools. What I want is any method, any machinery, any organisation that will, in fact, produce houses. Houses are the things we want. If we work for that purpose and to that end, we can leave our theories, dogmas, and doctrines over for settlement till a more convenient season. Suppose hon. Members look closely at the problem now before us. Is it possible to apply any one measure or any one scheme to the solution of this great housing question? Is there any universal remedy that can be applied? I venture to suggest there is not. The problem is too big, too complicated. Look at it for a moment!Look at the problem that confronts one in housing matters in Lancashire, with its suggestion of contiguous and continuous towns. Is the problem the same there as confronts us in Devonshire or Suffolk? Is the. problem before the urban district the same as that in the rural district? Decidedly no!There is no scheme, no manual, no one set of regulations, no one housing handbook published by the most learned expert, which is sufficient to guide and enable us to deal with these various problems. Again, you have the different prejudices and predilections of the men and women who occupy these islands. Many look to the State to do this work—to build great State colonies all around our large towns. Personally, I have great admiration for the garden suburbs of cities, but I know some men who regard them with loathing and contempt. There are many people who would consider themselves buried if they had to live in a garden city. They say that garden cities are places forsaken of God and despised of men. People do not all want to live in the same kind of house. Some people like a municipal dwelling; others do not. Some like a garden, with half an hour's tram-ride from their work; others like it close to their work, and a place to which they can walk in a very few minutes. We have no business to lay clown a dogmatic interpretation of what people ought to do, or what people must do, in this respect. Provided the conditions are healthy and sanitary, let people either live in their own houses or someone else's house. Let it be a municipal house, or a builder's house, or any other. Do not let us cramp the outlook and expectation of our people by preconceived doctrinaire views!
Therefore, though I believe in municipalities and local authorities contributing a substantial part to this quota, let us make no mistake about it. In the next few years the local authorities must put their backs into it and do a great deal of the work; but they cannot do it all. They ought not to be expected to do it.
In order to convince every Member of the House of that, I will ask each hon. Gentleman just to imagine for a moment the town or countryside that he knows best. I will take for my purpose, not the, great City of London—the problems here are so complicated. I will not take places even like Glasgow, Liverpool, or Manchester. I will take some moderate-sized provincial town like Nottingham, Leicester, or Derby. I go down to Leicester, say—a place I used to know very well—and I look at it from the standpoint of how I should solve the housing problem. Take the schemes of the local authority. They have done what they ought to have done. They have acquired an outlying tract in one of the great suburbs. They have planned a comprehensive scheme which is to the credit of the town. It is going to take some time to get through with it, but already there are a number of roads, a tramway extension to it, an extended sewage scheme laid down, and houses are being planned. In a few years that will be a very fine suburb. If I leave there and go down into Leicester, and walk about the town, I find that the working men do not seem to be satisfied with the idea of this fine garden suburb. Those whose work does not happen to be on the side of the town in which this great suburb is situated do not regard the future of this place with great satisfaction. They say, "We do not want long tram-rides to get from our work to the garden suburb, nor do we want to walk that way." "Besides," says one man, "I want a house now, next week, at once." Estates round about Leicester are being laid but, several leading into the town of Leicester; some near the centre. These estates are all laid out for building, the roads and sewers are made. People there say, "Why can't we at once get some houses on them?" Then I go and talk with the local builders. They tell me they do not want to do the work at present; they have plenty to do; but they add they would like to put up the houses if they could get someone to do it, and see the prospect of an economic
return in the letting of the houses. I say it is really a ridiculous and absurd thing that when you have that land already laid out, when you have those streets made—at pre-war prices, too, at half and one-third of the cost of now—when you have the plant, scaffolding, and a staff of men, and on the other hand you have men clamouring for houses, it is a preposterous, ridiculous, unpractical, and absurd thing to say because this is not put up by the local authority, or is not the garden suburb that we want we will not pass these dwellings for the people.
That is the way to look at the problem. Take any particular town and see what method you have to employ to solve the difficulty. Even in Leicester, Nottingham and Derby you can go along to the builder or to the estate owner, and if you offer grants varying from £130 to.£160 per house they will be able to build, and why? The reason is not because that represents the real difference between the increased cost of housing and what it used to cost, but that is the margin, and a man can borrow the rest and proceed to build. My right hon. Friend opposite knows that that is the case. You need not provide them with loans, for with that £l50 from the State a man can go to an insurance company or some local agency and people will be ready to finance him. A man under those circumstances can pass his plans almost at the next meeting of the town council, and he can set to work immediately, and in three months, weather permitting, he can have a roof on those houses and soon get people to live in them. If you want this job done you must take the quickest way, and use the material nearest to your hand. You can still go on with your garden suburbs and the acquisition of land for sites round towns, and while you are going on with such schemes you can at the same time find some humbler and simpler and more direct method of providing the houses the people want. I believe under the scheme of this Bill you would be able to do that without setting up rival or antagonistic schemes to those which are being carried out under town-planning schemes.
Some hon. Members have spoken as if the intention was to provide a low standard of houses, but no such intention exists. My right hon. Friend (Dr Addison) would not let me do it if I wanted to, and although I am not the Minister I could be very obstructive if I liked, and I may say that I would not let my right hon.
Friend do it without opposing him. There is no intention of reducing the standard. Because houses are erected in the centre of provincial towns it does not follow that they need be insanitary. We shall take good care that the local authorities, should this subsidy be granted, adopt a standard fit for men to dwell in, and only when the kind of workmanship is satisfactory and has been approved by a competent surveyor will this Grant be made. The House need have no fear about jerry-building or the adoption of a low standard of houses. It is a great deal better to live in a well-built cottage, twenty to the acre, than to live in a converted Army hut, a Canadian log cabin, or a mud building. We believe that under this scheme the builders in the town will respond, and that we shall get our 100,000 houses built in this way without competing with the schemes of the local authorities. One hon. Member suggested if these builders commenced to build in this way they will monopolise all the labour that would have been used by the local authorities. I think the hon. Member is mistaken in his facts. The house builder, as a rule, is not the contractor who tenders with the local authorities for building. As a rule he does not care about contracting, because he does not like the conditions imposed by architects and surveyors, who are fine and noble people, but very often they impose absurd conditions which the local builders do not like to carry out. They like to know exactly what they are doing, and, therefore, I think you will get your 100,000 houses built by men who do not work for the local authorities. Each small builder in a town generally manages to produce from somewhere a little following of his own. I do not know where they come from or where they hide themselves, but they do produce apprentices and men who do not care much for the ordinary hustle and bustle of contract work and who between times, are no doubt engaged in doing repairs. At any rate, they do produce their own staffs of men, and I suggest that at least 70 or 80 per cent. of these men will be a new contribution to the housing problem of the country, and they need not conflict with the carrying out of the housing schemes of local authorities.
I must just say a word or two about the countryside. It has been my lot to spend most of my days in the country, and I know something about the difficulties, of country housing. I believe this is the most effective method of producing houses in
the country districts. It is astonishing Low many hundreds and thousands of men have bought their own farms during the last eighteen months or two years, and there is hardly one amongst those farmers who is provided with an adequate number of suitable dwellings for his men. I see no reason why the men who purchased those farms should not build one, two, or three houses upon their farm, and even after the £150 subsidy has been paid to them they will not be a paying proposition. But they would not build them merely to let in the ordinary open market, but with the £150 granted towards the cost of building the advantages to the farmers of having their men on the farm would make it well worth their while to build the cottages. I know some hon. Members do not like what I am suggesting because they would be tied houses.
I know something about the disadvantages and I also know something about the other side. I suggest. that if every farm in this way had its two, or four, or six cottages for the men who work upon it provided at a nominal rent for the use of the workers on the land it would mean that the cottage would follow the employment, and if a man moves from one farm to another he would simply have to move from one house to another. I cannot see, if it is an obligation that rests upon a farmer to provide good farm buildings for his cattle and stables for his horses, why, in Heaven's name, should it not be his duty to provide good dwellings for his men passes my comprehension. If you consider the ordinary countryside, scattered hamlets, small villages and farms, it will be extremely difficult for the local authorities to carry out adequate schemes for dealing with all these things. There are many districts in which local authorities can well build, but I believe if every landowner and every smallholder, village tradesmen, blacksmiths, carpenters, bricklayers and plumbers could all do their bit in the direction of making a contribution towards housing, it would do something substantial to mitigate the hardships under which we are suffering. At least it cannot do any harm, and it may be a considerable contribution to the solution of this problem.
I have only one more word that I will say—I have a great many more words that I would like to say, but. I will restrain myself—and that is on the question of profiteering. It has been suggested that this grant of.£150 will en-
courage profiteering. I think the result will be the opposite. There never was so much profiteering in the building trade than exists now under the schemes of the local authorities. If you look at the prices that are being paid for ordinary five or six-roomed cottages, I am sure that you will agree with me. £800, £900 and £1,000 for five and six-roomed houses! The thing is monstrous, ridiculous and absurd. There is no foundation in fact for any such price. How then is it arrived at? By the grossest form of profiteering. There are three classes of people who are profiteering in connection with these schemes of the local authorities, namely, the people who supply the materials, the contractor who is carrying out the work, and the workmen who are laying the bricks and doing the work. All these three classes are profiteering. The people who are supplying the materials are running up the prices beyond anything that is necessary. The contractors are profiteering. Why, bless my life, the old-fashioned builder had to build houses and sell them for £20, £30, or £35 profit a piece. The contractor under these schemes wants £200 and £250 on each house that he builds. I am not passing judgment upon him, because I know that there are extenuating circumstances. I know that there is uncertainty. He does not know what will be the output of labour, and he does not know what will be the cost of the material. Therefore, he has to put on a considerable margin. He knows also that there are a great many more jobs than there are contractors to do them, and that he need not trouble to cut his price. Then, as far as the men are concerned—I am not passing any severe condemnation upon them any more than upon their employers—it is a well known fact amongst all of us, whether bricklayers, architects, or Ministers of Health, that if there is nothing to stimulate us to activity we are not as active as we might be. When you have the public purse to go at, and when there is no particular limit to your expenditure, there is no inducement to be economical.
There is, I think, slackness in each branch of the trade, and there is gross profiteering. I believe that any builder who set to work to build in the ordinary way with the ordinary inducements to economy, knowing that the expenditure would come out of his own pocket, would
build these houses for at least £300 less than the amount for which they are being built. I suggest that if on the 100,000 houses to be built under this subsidy you give a bonus of £150 per house, costing £15,000,000, you ought, by anything like good management and by the exhilarating influence of judicious competition between the house builder and the private contractor, to save £200 on the next 100,000 houses of the local authority, and thus save £20,000,000, as against the £15,000,000 which this subsidy will cost. The one thing necessary to secure any kind of economy is to make it necessary for people building houses to see that they get value for their money both in materials and labour. I am satisfied, therefore, that the measures contained in this Bill will be of considerable advantage, both to the local authorities and to the community at large, and will help to secure the houses which we so much need. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition (Sir D. Maclean) asked me to indulge in a prophecy about what would happen between now and next May.

Sir D. MACLEAN: By way of stimulation to activity.

Sir T. WALTERS: One of my rigid rules is never to prophesy until after the event. If I were ever to indulge in betting I should want to put my money down after I had seen the horse win. I do not think it would do for me to prophesy how many houses will be built. under this scheme before 1st May next, but I am advised that already numerous applications are being received. My advisors have no doubt, I have no doubt, and my right hon. Friend has no doubt, that we shall receive sufficient applications to build 100,000 houses in the next twelve months if the material and the labour are forthcoming, and I promise my right hon. Friend that any humble assistance which I can render will be cheerfully rendered to secure the early completion of these 100,000 houses. I believe that at any cost of time, labour, or money we must secure the fulfilment of our hopes. The homes of our people are the very centre of our national life, the homes are the cradle of our race, and whatever we may do in providing universities, art galleries, and public buildings, will not suffice, and, however beautiful our churches and our cathedrals may be, they will be of very small avail to us if the homes of our people are mean and poor. Therefore, it behoves us all not to quarrel
about different plans and methods and not to waste our time about doctrinaire theories, but to address ourselves with a single purpose and a united aim in endeavouring to solve this housing problem.

Dr. MURRAY: The right hon. Gentleman told us that he did not indulge in prophecy, but he indulged in one prophecy which seemed to me to be the most severe attack upon the main Housing Act which he professed to be supporting, that I have heard in this House. The prophecy which he made as to the difference in the price of building under this scheme and the price resulting from the profiteering, as he described it, under the schemes of the local authorities under the existing Act was simply staggering, but I do not believe that it will become true. The right, hon. Gentleman uttered the most severe condemnation of the Act which the House passed a few months ago that we have yet heard. he asked us not to be led away by doctrinaire views. I think it was in pursuance or doctrinaire views that the right hon. Gentleman spoke, because the opposition to the main principle underlying that Act came from the other side, from people who believe entirely in private enterprise, and do not believe in municipal enterprise. There is a strong body of opinion represented in this House which is out to kill that Act. I am sorry to say that there are a number of people, though they voted for that Act, who do not believe in the main principle underlying it. They do not believe in municipal enterprise in this direction. I must say, however, that I did not expect to hear such a forcible attack upon the finance of that Act as we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I do not think it will help municipal schemes to proclaim in this House, on the authority of the Government, that they lend themselves to profiteering, whereas private enterprise helps economy. That will not help the progress of the main Act.
But I did not get up for the purpose of speaking on the main question. I want to say a few words as to how this Bill is likely to affect rural housing in Scotland. I am glad to see the Under-Secretary for Health in his place. This is a question which affects his Department. But before I deal with it I wish, as one who has taken some little interest in the main Bill, to make some remarks about it. The White Paper has given an idea that the standard of housing is not to be so
good under this Bill as was contemplated under the main Act. I think that is a fair deduction from a reasonable reading of the Act and of the White Paper. The standard has been made more elastic. It gives an opportunity of building twenty houses to the acre. I think it would be a very great pity if the standard and ideals of the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the previous Bill, ideals which he set himself when he undertook his great task—a task which, if I may be allowed to say so, he fulfilled to the great satisfaction of this side of the House—I say it would he a great pity if those standards are now to ho modified under this new Bill, and I shall regard it as a retrograde step. There is one point I would also like to emphasise, and it applies not only to England, but to Scotland. The Minister of Health in England and the Board of Health in Scotland should not, merely think of building new houses. They should also not forget to provide hotter houses for those who are now housed in slums.
There is no doubt about it; the great white scourge of this country, tuberculosis, is really a house disease. It is the experience of medical men that nowadays they seldom find tuberculosis in roomy houses where there is plenty of fresh air and sunlight. It is in the poorer quarters of a city that you find tuberculosis. It is a disease caused by poverty, underfeeding, and overcrowding, and especially overcrowding, and I hope that one of the first objects of the authorities will be to remove these slums and to get on with providing houses for those who now live in insanitary dwellings.
With regard to the application of this Bill to Scotland and the rural areas there, I welcome the elasticity which the measure has brought into the scheme for housing both in England and Scotland, and, I hope, also in Ireland. I think the subsidy is going to do much more good if properly applied in the rural than in the urban areas. Indeed, I would suggest to the Secretary for Scotland that the subsidy of £150 should be devoted almost entirely to rural areas, because the Bill, with all its good points, hardly touches the question of rural housing. It passes it by on the other side. I am very glad to acknowledge that the Secretary for Scotland has made great amends for that defect and has been the means of getting a large amount of money to help in the provision of crofter houses in crofting areas. But the fact is that, for the crofter houses particularly,
the guarantee is of such a complicated character that it will be very difficult under the main Bill to provide houses in crofting areas. But through the exertions of the Secretary for Scotland the Board of Agriculture were empowered to grant loans, although there were no free grants. I am glad that this Bill will make up for that defect and enable people who build houses for themselves to get the grant. I have heard rumours that the Regulations that are in course of being framed with regard to the distribution of this grant are such as to make the operation partial in certain areas and to give the grant only to a certain class of new landholder. I feel somewhat perturbed about that, and my chief object in getting up was to ask for some information with regard to the application of the grant to rural housing in Scotland. I want to know who are the people who are to get it, and under what conditions it is to be given. I congratulate the Government upon this scheme particularly with regard to rural housing. I believe it will be of great benefit to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and that it will meet the peculiar conditions of those parts.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: I regret that the Paymaster-General should have risen to answer on the general Debate so early in the evening, because the discussion has been interrupted by private business, and a large number of questions which have been asked, and more which are going to be asked, will remain unanswered. We have had really no answer to the pertinent questions put by the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Lorden) from the point of view of the building trade, neither has an answer been given to the questions of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox) as to the retrospective effect of this £150 grant. On these points we have had no light whatever from the Government. The Paymaster-General was very modest in his speech as to the general scope of the Bill, and I think he did something to put it back into its proper perspective. He admitted that neither this nor any other Bill was likely to prove a universal remedy for our housing difficulties. I must express regret he did not give us a little more hard facts about the £150 grant. The House is absolutely in the dark as to how the figures, have been arrived at. There is a very general distrust of this grant, on
the ground that it is a dole, and until we get a little more information from the Government I think there will be a very natural feeling that the grant might as well be dropped out of the Bill altogether. On the financial side we have this to go upon, that the General Housing Memorandum, No. 8, published by the Ministry of Health, estimates that the normal level of prices will be reached in 1927 and that that level of prices will be two-thirds of the present level of the prices for building. That Memorandum, therefore, lays down that local authorities must arrange their rents so as to get two-thirds of what would be an economic rent at present prices by the year 1927, and it provides that the remaining one-third shall be paid out of public funds. The Paymaster-General, in his speech ten days ago, made out the conditions to be even worse. He said that out of every £1,000 that the local authorities would spend on housing they must lose £500.
How is this grant of £150 going to solve that economic question? There are two alternatives. First, you may insist that those who receive this grant are to build on the same standard of construction as the local authorities. If the Housing Memorandum is right, this grant of£150 on the same basis of construction will bridge the difference between the building cost and the rent available for a house of not more than £450 capital value. If, however, the Paymaster-General is right, this grant will only meet the difficulty for a house of a value of £300. Of course, with the same standard, it will not get over the gap between the economic rent and the capital value in respect of any house of a larger cost. As we have had no explanation of this fundamental difficulty, I am inclined to fear that the Government are going in for the second alternative, namely, that they are proposing this £150 grant to allow houses to be built at a lower standard than they insist on in the case of local authorities. it would be most undesirable for the State to set up a system of State-aided slums. We have had quite enough experience of a bad type of building in the past, and I do not think we ought to have this dole at all if it is going to lead to a lower standard of construction.
10.0 P.M.
In any case, a great deal of opposition has been expressed to this principle, and unless it is going to be effective it had better be dropped altogether. I am afraid the truth is that the small builder at present feels such uncertainty, owing to
the operation of the Rent Restriction Act and to the lurking fear that it may be extended, that he is not going to launch out on building schemes under present conditions. Until the situation is cleared up and things become normal, we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that we have to depend on municipal enterprise. If that is so, I am sure that, rather than cause suspicion and party feeling by carrying the provisions about the £150 grant, the Government would be better advised to drop it altogether. On the financial provisions of the Bill I am informed that the local authorities are by no means satisfied. I was told to-day that there was a meeting of various local authorities in the North-eastern area of England who believe that in many cases, if left to their own devices, they could raise loans at 5 per cent. They may be wrong. Unless the State is prepared to guarantee this loan, and give its assistance in that way, I do not see why you should stereotype any particular rate of interest, as is done in this Bill. Over the whole country I doubt whether you can get 5frac12; per cent. for local loans, as is laid down in this Bill. I am quite sure you cannot get it without a State guarantee behind it. Therefore the Government ought to consider one of two alternatives, either a State guarantee behind the 3frac12; per cent. loan, or freedom to local authorities to raise the money at the best rates they can without any State guarantee. I am not at all satisfied that all the financial expedients have been properly explored. In the case of factories, local authorities are now allowed, in certain eases, to give exemption from rates. I am informed that if local authorities were given the right to waive rates in the case of new working-class accommodation erected for the next few years, it would be possible to charge a rent for this new accommodation only 30 per cent. higher than the general level of pre-war rents. It has been pointed cut that local authorities would not lose under this system because they would, for the most part, be covering land with buildings which at present is producing no rates whatever, and they would have just as many households on which to levy their rates in the existing accommodation as they have at the present time. I was disappointed that the Paymaster-General did not deal with other forms of construction in a more sympathetic spirit. There is a very general feeling that the Ministry
of Health are not doing all they can to solve the difficulty on new and unconventional lines. I was rather annoyed to hear the Paymaster-General talk in the same breath in a tone of contempt of Canadian log huts and mud buildings. That only bears out the general impression we have formed that the Ministry of Health are looking at these new methods in a spirit of obstructive acquiescence.

Sir T. WALTERS: No!

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: To compare wooden houses with mud huts is obstructive acquiescence. The Minister of Health, in the last Debate, very rightly poured a good deal of ridicule on the efforts of an irresponsible journalist to push a certain class of wooden house. I do not think that by any means deals with the case, because since then the Agent-General for British Columbia, Mr. Wade, has published a very suggestive letter urging the advantages of mass construction, which saves architects' fees and an enormous amount of labour and material in measuring and cutting. If you had mass construction in the case of these wooden dwellings, you could prevent monotony by fixing a considerable number of different types, so that you would not have continual repetition in any one area. The Government would do well, instead of pouring ridicule on any new form of construction and speaking of it as lumber huts and mud dwellings—

Dr. ADDISON: When have I poured ridicule on any form of construction? We have spent money and no end of trouble in order to encourage new forms of construction and advertise them to all the local authorities of the country. It is most unjust.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I simply quoted the words of the Paymaster-General.

Sir T. WALTERS: I poured no contempt on any form of new construction. I simply suggested that well-built houses, such as are proposed under this scheme, were very much better than log dwellings or mud huts, and I think so still. That is no reflection on new forms of steel and concrete construction.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I am very glad to have that disclaimer and to hear that when the hon. Gentleman condemned mud huts and mud cabins he was not condemning new forms of wood construction, which have so far not had a very warm welcome from the authorities.

Dr. ADDISON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is utterly incorrect. They have had a most warm welcome and every form of encouragement.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: This is better and better. We will hope that in future those who specialise in this form of construction will be able to take advantage of the sympathy now expressed by the Minister of Health. On the whole, one feels that the Ministry of Health is, perhaps, rather prone to deal with particular symptoms rather than with the disease as a whole, because, after all, our trouble is due to the cost of building. Subsidising may be a necessary expedient at present, but it is certainly economically unsound. I remember on former occasions very weighty speeches being made from the Labour Benches against subsidising rents on the ground that it kept down wages It is frequently asserted that one of our difficulties is due to the restriction of output. It is said that bricklayers nowadays only lay 300 bricks, whereas they could lay 800 to 1,000, and under United States hustle methods they can lay in plain work up to 1,500 a day. I do not know whether that is true or not, but we ought to have information. When the Prime, Minister was talking on this subject ten days ago the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) interrupted him and said the trade unions concerned would like an inquiry and have asked for one. Why has not the Government accepted that invitation. Why also is it that they have not set up an inquiry, which I believe would also be welcome, on the dilution of labour. This is obviously a question which the House as a whole cannot judge of without further information, and I do not think it is wise for the Prime Minister to deal with this case as he did ten days ago and not go right through to the end and set up an inquiry when it is courted by those who are most concerned. If the facts are as asserted, public opinion will be the very best cure for our difficulties. If we really fail to solve this housing question on really fundamental lines—because all these Housing Bills are really makeshifts and are not going to the root of the question at all—it is very difficult to foretell what the eventual consequences may be. If rent is permanently to be subsidised, undoubtedly we shall land ourselves in a disastrous financial position, and if we do not go on subsidising rent, and if at time same time the high cost of construction permanently prevents our
people being properly housed, we shall have such a growth of discontent that it may upset our whole organisation. I therefore beg the Government not to be content with this or any other Bill, however good it may be in its details, but to try to deal with the root causes of the trouble and to lose no further time in holding an inquiry and turning the full light of knowledge and public opinion on the factors to which the high cost of building is now alleged to be due.

Sir R. THOMAS: The Paymaster-General's speech was very plausible. There is evidently a good deal of disagreement in regard to methods of building between members of the Government. Last Friday I had the company of the Secretary for Overseas Trade in my Constituency. We were on the same platform and were doing our best to excuse the Government for delay in the housing problem. My hon. Friend is a very fine specimen of a. gentleman who has been brought up in a log cabin in Canada and he advocated most strongly that form of dwelling in this country. The Paymaster-General advocates a good and well-built house, Any sort of a. house is better than nothing at all. Whether it is mud or a log cabin, give us a dwelling for men in the congested coal areas, where there are beds which are never cold. I represent a mining constituency. There are scores of dwellings where the beds are never cold from 1st January to 31st December. We ought to utilise any material at our disposal in order to put up some dwellings where people can have a roof over their heads. The original idea of the Government. was to entrust the whole question of housing to local authorities, and the Paymaster-General gave valuable service on the Housing Committee. But there is the stamp of the professional on his work and on his speeches. Now he says the private builder must do the work, and he makes a proposition which every business man knows is quite futile. What is the good of offering a dole to a builder when he cannot possibly put up a house even with the dole and get an economic rent? In my part of the country it costs £950 to put up a house which in pre-war days cost £250. Take off the £150 dole. The builder is faced with a capital expenditure of £800 a house, which even at 5 per cent. means £40 a year rent. The working men in that locality cannot pay more than £20 to £25 a year rent. What is the good of talking about asking a
private individual to put up houses when you know perfectly well that it is economically impossible to do so? There is only one way out of this difficulty. There has been a great deal of talk in this Debate about profiteering. I do not think the profiteering has been intentional. The fact is that there has been a shortage in this country of materials for putting up houses. There is competition for those materials, and whether the merchants like it or not the prices are forced up automatically owing to the shortage of the commodities. The only remedy is that the Government to-day should do what they did during the War. This is a war measure. The building of these houses is a war measure, Just as much a war measure as the provision of munitions of war, and the only remedy for the state of affairs now existing is for the Government to control these commodities and give them out, leaving a reasonable profit for the merchant.
There is one other difficulty in regard to finance. The Wrexham District Council have made an application since last July to the Government for a loan. The assess able value of the Wrexham Urban District is £208,000. The Government when list appealed to said they would apply to the Treasury. We waited a few weeks for the reply of the Treasury, but it was not forth coming. We could make no progress, although the plans were agreed and 1,700 houses were accepted by the Local Government Board as being suitable. Everything was ready to proceed with the work. There were plenty of labourers and plenty of masons to go on with the work, but we could not get the money. Every source was tried, but we could not get the money. We cannot get funds in order to start the scheme, and up till to day in that congested area, a mining area, where I have described the housing conditions, we are held up because we cannot get the money to start the work. What is the position? There can be no doubt that there has been a serious conflict between the Treasury and the Minister of Health. I know how keen the right hon. Gentleman is to proceed with housing, and I am also equally convinced that the Treasury is stopping him. It is high time the Treasury should realise how very important it is that this money should be forthcoming, and that those authorities Who cannot raise money should be helped by the Government, particularly where schemes have been approved,
where plans have been accepted, and where everything is ready to proceed with the work, especially during this season, when so many, as in my Constituency, are out of employment. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider this question, and first of all to control materials, because that is really vital. We must also dispose of the dole. It is absolutely no use, and if it is proceeded with, I predict that we shall be discussing, a few months hence, the failure of the housing scheme once more. It is no use proceeding with something which we know is quite impracticable. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, to drop the dole, and instead to control the materials.

An hon. MEMBER: Are materials not already controlled?

Sir R. THOMAS: No; I do not think they are.

An hon. MEMBER: I say they are.

Sir R. THOMAS: Then if they are controlled, the prices Ought not to be so high.

An hon. MEMBER: They have been fixed by the Government.

Sir R. THOMAS: Then there is something radically wrong, seeing that the prices of materials are in some cases 400 per cent. higher to day than they were in pre-war days. It is high time the matter should be investigated. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the matter, and to bring pressure upon the Treasury to make arrangements so that the difficulties in regard to money can be overcome by those local authorities who are prepared to proceed with housing work.

Mr. MOLES: The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last from the Treasury Bench told us that he should not be surprised if it were necessary to come to this House again to ask for an Amendment even on this amending Bill. I speak my own mind, and I doubt not that of a good many others in this House, when I express the hope that, whatever Amendment may be necessary, this is the last occasion on which the House will be called on to carry it into effect. I rise for the purpose of calling the attention of the Minister in charge of the Bill to one rather serious oversight. It is indeed a cardinal defect in the Bill, and if not remedied will produce a serious position when the details of administration come to be worked out. I allude to the question of valuation. Valuation nowa-
days is determined in one or two ways or in both—either upon the cost of construction or upon a rent economically based on the cost of construction. Either way the result is the same. The house which in pre-war days would have cost £250 had a valuation, say, of £15. That house to-day would cost at least £750, and the valuation would be practically treble the former figure. That is a point of very great importance. All our schemes of economic rent were based upon the assumption that the valuations of houses of identical type would be identical and on the pre-war basis. That is an entire misapprehension of the facts, yet no provision has been made for it.
Take a city like my own, Belfast, with a city consolidated rate of 10s. in the £ or Dublin where the rate is 17s., or Cork where it is 19s. 6d. in the £, and see what happens. There are two houses side by side. One, built in 1913, has a valuation of £15, and the other built, let us hope, in 1920, has a valuation of £42. There is a difference of £27 in the two valuations. If you apply that difference to a rate of 10s. or 17s. or 19s. 6d., and you add an Income Tax of 6s. in the £ on that £27 you have produced what would be a substantial rental on that basis. No provision whatever is made for this either in the original Act or in the amending Bill. I hold that to be a cardinal defect. The rate must be paid on that increased valuation either by the local authorities or by the State in the form of a subsidy or by the tenant. Whichever way it happens, the taxpayer has to pay the bill. We want a clear understanding on the point. Do not let us have the whole finance breaking down on this matter. It astonishes me that an important point of this kind should have been entirely overlooked. I do not suppose we can do anything with it here, but I do desire to draw attention to it, so that when the proper time arrives for making ample provision for it that provision shall be made. Let me say, in spite of all that has been stated in condemnation of the private builder and in praise of municipal enterprise, that I note with pleasure that it is proposed to call in now the private builder to the aid of the municipality. The reason is obvious. The local authority has been utterly inadequate to the task, and unless you mobilise the private builder you will again fail in meeting, within the prescribed time, the demand which has arisen for houses. But when you call in the private builder you
must have regard to his situation. No private builder, certainly no speculative builder, embarks upon building merely for the purpose of earning a dividend upon his capital in the form of rent. He builds in order that he may sell; he is constantly having his capital absorbed in building enterprises and having it realised as soon as he sells. Therefore, it is imperative that you should see to it that those who desire to buy from him are placed in a position to buy, in order that he may be able to sell. How is it proposed to do that?
I venture respectfully to make a suggestion. We in Ireland have had very gratifying experience of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act. In my own city, just prior to the War, the corporation had advanced £60,000, under that Act. Forgive civic vanity for a moment. Of that £60,000, two-thirds have been paid back, and the corporation has not lost so much as a sixpence. Dublin affords an almost equally gratifying example. The Small Dwellings Acquisition. Act has been paralysed by the War. What I suggest is that prompt steps should be taken to revitalise that measure, so that the corporations scattered throughout the three countries may be put in a position to advance to good tenants the purchase price, that thus the builder who builds to sell may be able to sell, and constantly go on repeating his building experiments. It has been objected that the builder must not be subsidised. I think that a complete misapprehension of the position. The builder must lay out in actual hard cash a specific sum. If the tenant proposes to buy, he would be required to sell to the tenant at an equitable cost of construction minus the subsidy. Perhaps I am wrong; if so, I can be corrected from the proper quarter. Thus the tenant would become the real beneficiary, and it is not the builder who is subsidised. Then there is the question of giving better facilities for securing materials. That has been one of the great difficulties in the way of corporations. It has been found utterly impossible to get bricks. timber, cement, and other materials. I know definitely that the Corporation of Belfast within the past fortnight sought to buy only half a ton of cement, and it could not get delivery; no purveyor of that article would supply more than a single bag at a time. How are you going to carry on great municipal building enterprises if you are
hampered by restrictions of the kind? It will be up to the Government, now that they have called in the private builder, and when they realise that the hands of the corporations have been tied in this way, to take the shackles off these things and to put the materials on the market in sufficient quantities, so that those who are prepared to build may be permitted to do so to the limit of their capacity. If it is not too great a shock to the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman, and I know he is a staunch and valorous defender of departmentalism, I hope he will forgive me if I urge the desirability of unswathing his Department from the red tape which surrounds it. Really business men have grown sick and tired of the whole thing. Let me give a typical instance, and I think when the right hon. Gentleman hears it he will not ask for another, and if he desires corroboration of it the right hon. Gentleman who sits on his left (Mr. Macpherson) will give it. I am quoting from the city of Belfast—

Dr. ADDISON: Are you quoting an example of red tape from my Department, because if it is not from my Department I cannot be responsible.

Mr. MOLES: I propose to quote a. typical example of what I complain of. The right hon. Gentleman invited me to give an example and now let bins have it. We formed in Belfast a panel of architects as desired, for the purpose of carrying out building schemes in Belfast. A body of most capable business men drew this body of architects around them, and for the building of £1,000,000 worth of houses that panel of architects undertook to do the duthes of architects for a sum of £11,000. Here is the red tape. The agreement was sent to the Local Government Board Housing Committee for approval, and that sapient body sat in judgment upon it, and sent out a memorandum which for official ineptitude I have never seen paralleled. They expressed the hope that due provision had been made for office expenses—for lead pencils, I suppose—and then they launched out into a series of the most ridiculous propositions ever heard of, with the net result that what the architects were prepared to do for £11,000 was, by the suggestions made, brought up to £38,000. If my right hon. is not satisfied with that instance of red tape I am prepared to go further, but I presume he is. May I, as a final touch of comedy, point out that the document containing all, those suggestions
was quite appropriately signed by a gentleman named "Codling.'' We want to get on. We put the best of our knowledge and energy and practical skill at the disposal of the Government, and we say to them, "If you want us to go on we are ready to go on, but do give us the facilities to make progress." All that the Corporation of Belfast can do has been done. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland will bear witness to that. We have even sent a deputation to appeal to him. He is supposed to have an even more than usually stoney heart, though I do not subscribe to that, but I myself saw tears of emotion in his eyes on that occasion. At any rate, he knows now that we are prepared to help him in every kind of way, and I believe the example of our corporation is typical of nearly every other public body. We are painfully conscious of the responsibility and the public have taken care to remind us of it. It is not fair to have them put in the position that indignation meetings of the whole public have been called in my city, and blame laid on the corporation, though they are as guiltless as the Serjeant-at-Arms. It is not fair to expose them to accusations of this kind when the real blame is with the Government. They want us to get on, and we are willing, but we say this to them: "Clear the way."

Mr. J. DAVISON: I desire, first of all, to congratulate the Minister of Health on the sincerity of purpose which has actuated him in urging the local authorities to proceed as rapidly as possible with their housing schemes. The local authorities are fully alive to the necessity of that themselves, but what they require is the assurance from the Government that if they fail to raise the requisite loans the Government will be behind them in financing their schemes. From some of the speeches that have been delivered to-night one would imagine that the housing problem was a new discovery of the present Government. They are not quite so progressive as even the Government of 1913, because the present Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, advocated the very thing that the Labour party are advocating from these benches to-night. Speaking at Swindon in October, 1913, the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said:
On behalf of the Government, we propose to get a schedule of all these districts, find out what the shortage is, what houses are required, and we propose to build them ourselves.
Again at Middlesbrough, on 8th November, 1913, he said:
I will summarise what we propose to do. We propose to deal with the evils of the leasehold system as regards business premises and leasehold property. We are going to make a national survey of the housing problem. The first step will be the organisation of a complete survey, or national survey by the Imperial Government, of the whole of the housing accommodation in this island. Note will be taken of every inadequacy, every defect, every insufficiency in housing accommodation, everything which has led to overcrowding and all its evils. There will be an inventory of all slums, the insanitary character of dwellings, the lack of air, and light, and space. the absence of any means of healthy recreation. In fact, the survey will be complete and searching, and it will be the basis of all future operations against Slums and overcrowded houses.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to describe the evils of slumdom. No one, think, know it better than the working classes of the United Kingdom, because they have had to tolerate it for the generations when both the political parthes were in power. For the ten years before the War, let me remind the House, we were building houses of three and four rooms for dwellings at the rate of 74,000 a year. The population was growing during the same period at the rate of 330,000 each year, and yet immediately the present Prime Minister came into the country and attempted to solve the housing problem by the institution of his Budget proposals, the private builder, of whom we have heard so much to-day, took fright. The production of houses during the year when he was making his Budget proposals was 88,000; immediately those Budget proposals became known the production fell to 11,000. They were reassured during the following year, and they produced another 80,000. But directly the two speeches to which I have referred were made by the Prime Minister, production in houses immediately fell to 47,000. Are we going again to entrust the task of reconstructing this old country of ours upon the lines indicated by several hon. and right hon. Members to the same party who failed to do their duty in the production of houses before the War?

Mr. G. MURRAY: Not the same party.

Mr. DAVISON: At any rate, I think you are one of the party to whom I am referring. We must proceed upon national lines, because it is a national problem. It is just as much a national problem as the winning of the War, and I claim that we
are not proceeding on those lines. If we attempt to give a subsidy to the private builder, what will be the result? Immediately you will have the workers engaged in the building industry demanding higher rates of wages, because of the subsidy. Is there not a better way so far as the Government and the local authorities are concerned? Why not float a national housing Loan, get the money at 5 per cent., and lend it to the local authorities at 3frac12; per cent? I venture to suggest that is one method by which the local authorities would immediately proceed to erect all the houses, possibly with the materials at their disposal. But there is another method, and this was tried during the reign of the two political parties immediately before the War. There were great municipalities which instituted works departments. They engaged their labour direct. They paid the trade union rates of wages, and—I say it with a due sense of what I am saying—maliciously the vested interests upon those local authorities prevented those works departments becoming a success. Let me suggest to the Government that, instead of giving a dole, they should permit the local authorities to set up their works departments, and that those works departments should be given priority of materials for the erection of houses, in conjunction with the financial assistance which I have suggested. There would be another benefit accruing from that. While proceeding with their housing schemes they would have the loyal co-operation of the great trade unions in supplying all the labour necessary.
We have heard during the Debate that prices have risen enormously, and one of the reasons given is that labour has demanded higher rates of wages. There is a combine known as the Metal Trades' Combine, which raises the price of the materials that are necessary so far as stoves and grates are concerned. Although there were no imports coming into the country, this combine during the early stages of the War was so patriotic that it raised the price of the raw materials required for the building of houses from 2s. 6¼d. to 4s. 5d. The increases in wages amounted to 6½d. We must place the responsibility for the very rapid rise in the materials necessary to the building industry, not upon the shoulders of the workers, but upon those
who ever seek by combination to raise prices. Upon these lines have I intervened in debate to suggest to the Government, in my humble way, that they would be doing far more effective service by abolishing the suggested dole, and by substituting the two courses I have suggested.

Dr. ADDISON: May I intervene to ask the House now to give a Second Reading to the Bill, in view of the fact that we have various other Orders that we desire to get?

Mr. G. MURRAY: First of all I would like to express agreement with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who wished that the Paymaster-General had deferred his reply till later in the evening. The question of housing is probably the most vital problem with which we have to-day to deal. The previous Debate took an almost entirely English turn. The Scottish Members were not called upon to speak, Only at the fag end was one Scottish Member called upon, and the Secretary for Scotland was counted out. I speak with considerable diffidence, being a new Member, but I feel—and suggest—that some arrangement should be made in a Bill that touches the whole of the United Kingdom whereby Members from all parts might have an opportunity to speak, and that towards the end of the Debate the respective Secretaries of State or whoever the respective representatives of the Government were, should reply to the different points raised. This may not be a feasible solution, but I ask that the Leader of the House should take this matter into consideration, and see whether it is not possible to arrive at a solution which will allay the feeling aroused in Scotland. Nearly every Scottish Member in the last Debate was pilloried in the Scottish newspapers because he was not, present at the fag end of that Debate. The reason for that was that the Scottish Members understood that they would not be permitted to take part in the Debate.

Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the Bill. Will the hon. Gentleman give his attention to the Bill before the House?

Mr. MURRAY: I thought it was necessary for me to make that explanation.

Mr. SPEAKER: We have had four Scottish Members to-day.

Mr. MURRAY: One of them was the Leader of the Independent Liberal
party and the other represented the Labour party, and that was the reason why I raised the question I sincerely welcome this Bill. It raises many points which have been discussed in this House and outside which were not dealt with in the Housing Acts already passed, and with certain Amendments in Committee I believe that this Bill can be shaped into an exceedingly good measure. Take the question of subsidies. The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) suggested that the subsidies should be applied entirely to rural houses. I have great sympathy with that view, because when the Scottish Housing Bill was before the Committee upstairs and before this House I took the view that it was necessary to provide subsidies to private persons to enable rural housing to proceed in an efficient way. I am not sure, however, that in this instance be is right in proposing that these subsidies should be applied to rural housing. The total number of houses to be allotted in the United Kingdom is 100,000. We may take it that eleven-eightieths will be allotted to Scotland, and that will mean about 14,000 or 15,000 houses. Take the city of Glasgow, one of the divisions of which I have the honour to represent. It contains a little less than one-quarter of the inhabitants of Scotland, or over 1,200,000 people. If we take a quarter of the houses that will be allotted to Scotland that would give us about 3,500 houses for Glasgow. The housing scheme in Glasgow is one which necessitates the erection in the course of the next seven years of 57,000 houses.
I am given to understand that the local authority are of opinion that only some 7,000 houses can be erected in the course of the next three years. Supposing that, as part of this subsidised allotment, 3,500 houses are allotted to Glasgow, that will make very nearly 10,500 all told for the next three years. That is little enough in any case. It will only touch the fringe of this fearful, horrible housing question with which we have to deal in Glasgow, and I therefore appeal to my hon Friend not to press that side of the case. If he were to make a visit of inspection to some of the awful slums in a part of the constituency that I represent, he would come away of the opinion that it is more necessary to provide houses in Glasgow to relieve the congestion there than to provide houses in the more salubrious climate of the Western Isles.

Dr. MURRAY: I have visited these houses in the hon. Member's constituency at all hours of the day and night.

11.0 P. M.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Then my hon. Friend is all the more likely to agree with me. I should like further to take up the question of wooden houses. Two or three weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Addison) stated that wooden houses were very cold. I do not agree with him entirely. It is possible for wooden houses to be made as warm as other houses with central heating and other appurtenances. I am glad to hear that 500 wooden houses are being erected in Glasgow. It is not, however, of wooden huts but of wooden-frame houses, regarding which the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) gave a very good account, that I wish particularly to speak. I suggest that this £600,000—I work it out at more or less that figure—which will be allotted to Glasgow for the purpose of subsidising these additional houses in Glasgow might very well be utilised in erecting wooden-frame houses—wooden-framed houses which, as one learned from a very interesting letter written to the "Times" a few days ago by the Agent-General of British Columbia, could be shipped over from Canada in a very short time. These houses could obviously be erected very much more cheaply than masonry or brick, they could be put up in a very much shorter time, and, judging from the experience of Canada and America, they would prove as warm as either brick or masonry. They would last thirty or forty years. I make the suggestion that the amount proposed to be allocated for this purpose in subsidies might very well be utilised for wooden-frame houses, and so remove very much more quickly the terrible congestion in the slums and the shortage of houses for other people in Glasgow. Now I come to the question of finance. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) stated early in the Debate that the whole of this question really rests on finance. I do not think that the financial Clauses, as they stand, are going to meet the situation which we have in front of us. They may go a certain length towards doing so. But take, again, the case of the City of Glasgow. That city, with its 57,000 houses, will require ultimately the sum of £50,000,000 in order to house and re-house the inhabitants. It is most unlikely that it will be possible for the Glas-
gow local authority to raise that amount under the Clauses of this Bill. In regard to Section 5, the Member for Central Edinburgh mentioned the fact that the luxury provision referred only to construction, and suggested that that should be extended to repairs. I regard that as a most dangerous proposal; if such a power were placed in the hands of any authority or any individual it would be liable to misuse. Still, I do not believe that the Clause goes far enough. It should be amended to include houses under reconstruction. I call to mind a case in one of the main thoroughfares in Glasgow about eight weeks ago in which a cinema company bought up three or four business houses in which fifty or sixty hands were employed. The owners of the businesses had no remedy, but if there had been a provision in the Act covering cases of reconstruction as well as construction such a case could have been met. There is one other point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide !"]—I will not detain the House more than a few minutes, but I want to get this point out. I observe that there is nothing in Clause I which provides a guarantee to a builder who erects a house that he will receive the subsidy. Builders in a city may erect houses, and the local authority may say, "We have only so much to spend and your houses will overdraw the account. Notwithstanding the fact that your houses do fall within the ambit of this particular Clause, we have no money with which to pay for them." I suggest, therefore, that Clause I requires Amendment in that respect. I regret that it has been necessary for me to detain the House so long, but there is no City in the Kingdom that is more in need of housing reform than Glasgow.

Mr. WALLACE: I wish to say a word about the Scottish housing position because the problem there is much more serious and urgent than in any part of the United Kingdom. An hon. Member opposite, speaking of Ireland, said that the local authorities were quite inadequate to deal with the housing problem. That may be perfectly true about Ireland, but it is not true about Scotland. The municipal authorities in Scotland, as soon as they had the power under the Housing Act, set to work with a will. While England and Ireland were talking, Scotland was building. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] In places too numerous to mention. When the building schemes were well matured, my right
hon. Friend projected a totally new element has entered into the scheme —the element of the subsidy. I think that the subsidy is a mistake. Money subsidies to Scotland are mostly unacceptable. If there is any money going to which we have a right, of course we shall look after getting our share. That leads me to ask a direct question of my right hon. Friend. I understand from the White Paper, which I studied carefully this morning, that there is a sum of £l5,000,000to be expended for this subsidy. England requires 500,000 houses and Scotland requires as a minimum 250,000. What share of this £15,000,000 is Scotland to have? It is surely self-evident that if we want half the number of houses England wants, our minimum share of the subsidy ought to be one-third—that is, £5,000,000. I hope it will certainly not be less than that.
Page 4 of the White Paper gives particulars of how these subsidies are to be divided for a certain class of house, I should like to know how the guarantee given by the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister that the maximum sum to be expended as a subsidy on any one house was to be £150 is safeguarded. I wish to know under this scheme what is to prevent my right hon. Friend, or, indeed, one of the many bureaucratic gentlemen who will be under his control, in a moment of exuberance not regarding this £150 as a maximum but increasing it to £250 or £350. What Parliamentary Statute prevents this increase in what up to now we have always regarded as a maximum?
I do not depreciate in any way the efforts of the private builder, but what position is he in under this scheme? He expends in Scotland, say, £850 in the building of a house. That is the average expense of a house of the kind we have in view. He gets a subsidy of £150. He is more likely to let it than to sell it. Deducting the subsidy, he has £700 left, upon which he must have a return, and being a Scotchman, he wants a reasonable return, and a reasonable return, taking repairs, etc., into account, would be 8 per cent., which means that he would have to charge a rent of £56 per annum. All these houses are built to the workingman's house specification. There is no working man prepared to pay £56 for a house which before the War he got at £18. I can see the Scottish builder letting
a house to some homeless millionaire at a very high rent, and the working classes may not be any better provided for.
I would, therefore, like to know from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health whether there is to be any jurisdiction over the letting of the houses built by the private builder, what that jurisdiction is, and how it is to be exercised. Another important matter on which I should like additional information is the question of finance. While the Scottish municipal authorities are willing to co-operate loyally and heartily with the Government in the adequate provision of houses, they are faced with serious financial difficulties. In my own Constituency the housing scheme of the city of Dunfermline is complete, but there are serious financial obstacles, which I have already brought to the notice of the Secretary for Scotland. It is next to impossible to raise the money required on long-term loans, and the municipal authority of Dunfermline wishes to know if Treasury sanction can be obtained to arrange for short-term loans of, say, three, five, and seven years. If such loans were approved and called in to an unexpected extent, the Dunfermline. Corporation would like to be assured of definite Government help in that emergency.

Mr. HAROLD SMITH: The last two speeches have put, the Scottish point of view before the House. Scotland has spoken, and it wants £5,000,000, which is a third of the Grant it is proposed to give under the Bill, though, in fact, on a population basis, it is only entitled to one-seventh. That is Scottish arithmetic with which I will not attempt to deal.

Mr. WALLACE: I pointed out that this was not on the basis of population, but of shortage, which in England is 500,000 and in Scotland 250,000. If that arithmetic does not appeal to the hon. Member I cannot make it clear.

Mr. SMITH: It interests me very much as a further example of what a Scottish Member can do when he wants money. I do not suggest that the hon. Member was advocating it from a population point of view, but, if he did, he is only entitled to one-seventh. However, Scotland has spoken, and it wants a third. There are one or two things in the Bill to which the attention of the Government ought to be
called. I am glad to see the Attorney-General present. I would call his attention to Sub-section (4) of Clause 5, which says:
In any action or proceedings for breach of a contract to construct any works or buildings, it shall be a good defence to the action or proceedings to prove that due fulfilment of the contract was rendered impossible by reason of an Order having been made under this Section.
I particularly call his attention to the words "was rendered impossible," and submit that these words shall be amended before this bill reaenes the Third Reading. The Attorney-General will know much better than I the grave and difficult problems with which the Courts nave been faced during the last five years, surrounding the question whether a contract was ended or merely suspended. What is the issue here raised How is the contract to be rendered impossible in order to justify a breach? Is it to be rendered impossible at the time when the prohibition of the Sub-section was made or does it arise subsequently It is impossible for these words to remain as they are. There is a precedent for the Sub-section. The Attorney-General knows well that under the Defence of the Realm Act there was a Regulation passed which rendered the commandeering by the Government of stores, buildings, or equipment a good defence for an action for breach of contract. If these words remain in the Bill they will give rise to a very great deal of trouble, and possibly heavy litigation. They need to be more clearly defined. If "A" undertakes to build a cinema for "B" for 136,000, it is no use using language like this to say that "B" may break his contract if it be impossible by reason of an Order having been made under this Section to carry out the contract. May I draw the attention of the Minister of Health to Clause 6? This Clause should be extended. I am entirely in sympathy with it, but my friendly criticism of it is that it does not go fro enough. Within a half-mile of this House there is a very large building which before the War was used as an hotel. Let us assume that there are something like 500 bedrooms. It was commandeered by the War Office, and has been used for military purposes because it is situated within a few hundred yards of Victoria Station. I understand that the hotel is going to be turned into offices. Is that to be allowed? Here you have an enormous building suitable
for housing accommodation, and you are going to turn it into offices for which there is no demand comparable with the demand for houses in London. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider including in the Section not only the prohibition of the demolition of houses but the conversion of houses into offices or for any other purposes. I cannot get over the question of this big hotel, the Buckingham Palace Hotel, which, I believe, would accommodate something like 500 persons if turned into flats at a very small cost, being converted into offices, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to extend the Section so as to stop, if the local authority so desire, any person from either demolishing or converting into offices any building which at a small cost could be rendered suitable for occupation as a dwelling-house or houses.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) drew attention in an able speech to the fact that under Clause I no builder can in any circumstances receive a subsidy if through whatsoever cause his house is not completed within fifteen months. That point has not been answered. Perhaps there may be difficulties in answering it now. There is no power to extend it beyond three months. Imagine a builder who has put down the foundations of ten, twenty, fifty, or 100 houses under this Bill, encouraged—because no builder is going to do this except by the encouragement which this Bill offers—by the subsidy of £150 per house which he is going to get. If he did not there would be no inducement to put down a single brick in present circumstances. Suppose, as my right hon. Friend suggests, owing to the impossibility of getting delivery of materials, or to strikes in the building trade, he cannot complete in the time, is the Minister not going to take power under this Bill to say, "We regard this as a special case and we are not going to make him bankrupt or to break him, because, through no fault of his own, he has riot been able to complete the work which he started at our request?" I beg the Government to take power in special cases to extend the period to an unlimited extent, provided they are satisfied that the man has bond fide striven to do his best, that he has started the scheme with the honest intention of finishing the job in time and has not been able to do so through no fault of his own. I hope that the Government will, in Committee stage, introduce an Amendment
providing themselves this increased power. We have had a most interesting debate, and the greatest tribute the House can pay the Bill, of which I am a very warm supporter, is derived from the fact that scarcely a speech has been made in support of the Amendment. There has been an honest attempt on all sides to criticise in a friendly way. I think the Minister of Health may congratulate himself.

Mr. STURROCK: We have had no authoritative statement from the Government, as to the present position of the Scottish housing question. In view of what happened in this Rouse not so many weeks ago, I think that is a legitimate point of complaint. I am not prepared to admit that in Scotland we are at all backward in the matter of housing. As a matter of fact I hold strongly that our municipalities have done a very great deal. While I was listening to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. G. Murray) I almost felt tempted to introduce the brilliant example of Montrose, a town scarcely less known than Glasgow, which has made very considerable headway in housing. There is one point to which I wish to draw attention. A very great deal has been said about the subsidy or dole which is to be offered for the encouragement of building. In the present state of things I do not think we should quarrel for a moment about whether it is a subsidy or a dole or anything else, provided it is going to produce houses to meet the demand. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider this—that the offer made by the Government is not circumscribed in any way so far as workmen's houses are concerned. In my reading of the Bill, and if the White Paper is correct, the builder may proceed with plans for any sort of dwelling, of three, four, or five rooms, and having completed his work can obtain his subsidy, and having done so, it does not appear that he is compelled in any way to put that house in the market at an economic rent; on the contrary, he might secure a rent from any sort of person who was willing to pay anything from £60 to £60 a year for the house. I do not think for a moment that that is the intention of the subsidy. I take it the purpose of the Government is to secure the rapid erection of artisan dwellings I ask that that point should be taken into account, and that the Government should let us know
where there is any sort of control as to the ultimate disposal of the houses which are erected with the aid of the dole.

Mr. J. JONES: I have been very much interested in hearing this Debate, because I am one of the very few Members who happen to live in an ordinary working-class cottage. In the district which I represent we are not housed—we are warehoused. Consequently, we have personal understanding of the problem with which we are now faced. I do not object to subsidies provided they achieve their object, and if by encouraging people to do their best out of them, nobody has a right to grumble. During the time we were engaged in that great struggle, which, if we were victorious, was supposed to mean the ushering in of better times for the people, we held out the hope to them that one of the first subjects which would be tackled as a consequence of our victory would be the proper housing of the people. In order to win that victory, we found it absolutely essential in the national interest to establish means whereby munitions should be properly provided. We were short of guns and high explosives. and all the things essential for the carrying out of modern warfare. We did not stop then to argue as to whether private or public enterprise was the best method of realising our object, but we said that every man and woman in the nation who had the interest of the community at heart would he prepared to sink their differences and unite upon the common object which was to win the War. We established a Ministry of Reconstruction, with the deliberate object and purpose of preparing the means whereby, as soon as we had established peace, we should win the results of victory. I have travelled all over the country as a trade union official trying to point out to the members of the union I happened to be connected with the necessity of sinking their grievances and agreeing to lay their case on the table, so that it might be decided by independent courts of arbitration at that time. If they wanted their pound of flesh they could have got all they wanted by simply taking advantage of their economic opportunity. We were called into consultation by the Ministry at the time. Both employers and employed of the building trade were asked to meet the Ministers round a table to discuss how and where and when
we could dispose of our labour and of our capital in order to provide the things required. Munition factories were wanted, extensions were required, and organisation of the total labour power of the nation was essential so that we might have places, not to house the people in the ordinary sense, but in order to produce the things essential to protect the national interests from the military and naval point of view. If it was essential for us to have proper buildings to produce those things at that time, now that peace has broken out almost as suddenly as war, from the standpoint of those who claim to be in authority, I ask why should there he all this quibbling as to the means whereby methods should be organised to provide the public with the things they require? We have heard a great deal about Scotland and a little bit about Ireland, and I know a bit about both, but I happen to represent a London constituency, not a very insignificant part of the United Kingdom, and where we know the housing problem from A to Z, where we know what it is to lead laborious days, and very often have to look for a bed when nobody else can give us the opportunity of enjoying one. Consequently, we want to know what this dole to the builders means. I ask the Minister responsible for this Bill to tell us why, when he consulted us to produce munition factories, he did not consult us when he wanted houses for the people?
Might I remind this House that lately one of the most honoured Members of this House has been responsible for a scheme which has resulted in the form of fifty different industrial councils in some of our most important industries? Amongst the first of these councils established was the Building Trades Industrial Council, and I believe it has been one of the most successful in dealing with the problems affecting the industry. Would the House really believe that this Building Trades Parliament, as it is now termed, held its annual meeting at York a few weeks ago, and that no member of that Building Trades Parliament, either on the employers' side or on the workmen's side, ever heard a single word regarding this subsidy to builders? Who was responsible for proposing the subsidy? It seems a most extraordinary thing, after the promise made to us by the Minister of Reconstruction. When the Industrial Council was established we were promised that in
any matter affecting the building trades that the Government had to deal with they would look on the industrial Council of the Building Trades as the first authority they would appeal to. That promise hag not been kept, and no later than—

Dr. ADDISON: That statement is entirely incorrect. That. promise has been kept. I have been in constant negotiations with the Joint Industrial Council, and I met them for the last time on Friday last.

Mr. JONES: I will accept the correction of the right hon. Gentleman, but I am giving exactly the report that was made to us. The only information I can get is that given to me by those people supposed to have been in constant touch with yourself, and their report at the last meeting at York, ten days ago, when I was present, was that up to that moment they had not been consulted about this proposed subsidy. Therefore I suggest that this subsidy has never been before the representatives of the Industrial Council, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to say that he has ever consulted the Building Trades' Industrial Council on the matter of this subsidy.

Dr. ADDISON: It is quite true that I did not consult the Joint Industrial Council on the proposals in this Bill. I submitted the Bill to Parliament. I consulted them on all the points affecting the building of houses, and I adopted their main recommendations, and am now carrying them out, but I did not consult them on the details of this Bill, which is a matter for Parliament, and I never promised that I would, either.

Mr. JONES: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has given that explanation. We are told that one of the main incentives for getting houses built is the establishment of this subsidy. If as a result of experience it has been discovered that the only method whereby houses could be produced would be to subsidise the private builder, surely the working-class organisations and the National Association of Master Builders were interested in a proposition of that character. I say that this proposition has come from quarters which no section of the trade, either on the workmen's or employers' side, ever heard anything about until it was actually brought before this House as a Bill. Consequently. what is the good of talking about National Industrial Councils, and asking for confidence between capital and labour if those
organisations do not even get a hint of the proposals likely to be made, and all of a sudden, without any consideration, a measure is introduced here, and the people mainly responsible for the production of houses have no inkling of the intention of the. Government? What is the consequence? Various trade unionists in the building trade are already tabling Resolutions through their different branches that they will have nothing to do with subsidised building. I want to see the houses built, and I am not particular who is going to build them, but I am particular about their being proper houses when they are built. In order to meet the immediate difficulty, I am anxious to see in every possible direction that everybody who can help shall be brought in to help. But if we are going to be told that this problem is simply a question of private enterprise against public enterprise, then it means that one set of experts is to be set against another set of experts. We shall have plenty of theories but nowhere to live.
Then as to the financial part of the Bill, who is going to finance the scheme? If the local authorities have got to find the money to build the houses, I can see how some of us are going to be handicapped. If we go into the local market to float a loan we stand a very poor chance, with high rates and low rateable value. What chance shall we have against big sites with high rateable value and low rates? We are handicapped at the start, and, therefore, we think that the only way out of the difficulty is a national housing Loan. If it were necessary to float a Loan to win the War, it is just as necessary to float a Loan to win the Peace. The best way to win the Peace is to see that people are properly housed, and before you can ask us to agree to the housing proposals before the House to-night, we claim that you should give every support and assistance to the municipal authorities, so that they shall not be wiped out of existence in their desire to provide proper housing accommodation. An hon. Member says "Wait," but we have waited as long as we can. If we wait any longer we shall want, not houses, but coffins. The housing problem is not a new one. William Morris said that, so long as the people are poor, they will be poorly housed. Therefore, so far as we are concerned, we want the municipalities to have the right to build houses, and not to be held up by red tape. I have been for sixteen years
a member of a local authority in the East End of London. We have built some houses. On the system on which we have been allowed to build, and under the financial arrangements and the powers we possess, what is the position? That before we have finally escaped our financial responsibilities we have paid more in interest for the houses than they originally cost to build. It is a jolly fine game played slowly—almost as good as tip-cat. The private builder is not held up in the same way that we are. Give us the same freedom as the private builder and the municipalities will be able to go on with the work. For at present the municipalities are handicapped in every direction. The power of the law is used against them. So far as this Bill is concerned, I do not want to oppose anything, but I repeat give us greater powers and we will get the work done

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir G. Hewart): An hon. and learned Member has asked for an expression of opinion upon a point of law, under Clause 5, Subsection (4) of the Bill. This Sub-section provides that where the local authority sees that labour and materials are being used so that the building of houses is delayed it may prohibit the further construction of works in process of erection. The question raised was—at what point of time ought the work to be regarded as impossible from the point of view of Subsection (4), which says:
(4) In any action or proceedings for breach of a contract to construct any works or buildings, it shall be a good defence to the action or proceedings to prove that due fulfilment of the contract was rendered impossible by reason of an Order having been made under this Section.
In my opinion, expressed on the spur of the moment, and at the request of my hon. and learned Friend, the moment at which the work is impossible is to be taken as the moment at which that order is made—whenever that moment may be. That, and many other points of substance, have been raised,—and if I may make a general observation upon these points it is that they are really—and I speak more particularly with reference to the speech made by the hon Gentleman who has just sat down—points, no doubt of some importance, but of detail. Every one of them is well worth consideration in Committee. But I am sure my right hon. Friend recognises that the matter we are now upon is whether the Bill is or is not to be
read a second time. I ask that at this comparatively late hour we may now agree to read the Bill a second time, with the assurance that every point of substance will be fully considered in Committee.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Wednesday.—[Dr. Addison.]

Orders of the Day — NURSES REGISTRATION (No. 2) BILL

As amended (in the standing Committee) considered; read the third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — IRISH RAILWAYS (CONFIRMATION OF AGREEMENT) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(confirmation of the Terms of Agreement.)

The provisions of the above-recited agreement which are set out in the Schedule to this Act are hereby confirmed, and shad have full force and effect, as from the date of time said agreement, as if enacted in this Act, and any payments under the said agreement and before the passing of this Act which are inconsistent with the terms of the said provisions shall be adjusted so as to give effect to those terms.

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel W. Guinness) cannot be taken, because it would be equal to negativing the Clause.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I did not desire to move the omission of the whole Clause as my objection is directed to the particular point of the railways which were worked under a baronial guarantee. Anyone looking at the Short Title of the Bill would understand that it merely confirms an agreement made between two consenting parties, whereas it goes much further than that. It repeals the statutory rights of Irish ratepayers, who have never been consulted, and who are in no way parties to this agreement. In certain cases in Ireland, under the Act of 1883, there is a liability on the ratepayers to
contribute to the finances of the railways—a liability based on free contracts. Those contracts were made by the grand jurors, who, under the Act of 1883, were liable to make up certain dividends, not exceeding 5 per cent. There was great liberty and variety in these various baronial guarantees. In most cases the dividends of these railway companies were made up in this way to 5 per cent. They are now made up by the county councils, as the successors of the grand juries, who strike a rate on the baronies concerned after getting a contribution from the Treasury.
During the War the Government took over the Irish railways and made an agreement with them, but neglected all arrangements about the guarantees of the ratepayers and kept no accounts. They now contend that the year 1913 is a favourable basis for striking this contribution from the ratepayers. They make out that the ratepayers would have actually paid more during the War if the contribution had been based on the actual traffic receipts. How do the Government know that if they have kept no accounts? It is asserted that there was a very great increase in the agricultural traffic carried on these railways owing to the war-time tillage Regulations, quite apart from Government stores and troops. Great quantities of hay and grain have been carried to the large markets for sale and shipment to ports. Naturally the working companies did not bother about keeping accounts, because the agreement they made with time Government provided that they were to receive compensation either as in the datum year, 1913, partly at the expense of the ratepayers and partly at the expense of the Government, or wholly at the expense of tire Government if they failed to carry out their agreement in the form of an Act of Parliament. Now the Government come to the House and seek, by an Act of Parliament, to set aside these contracts which have been freely made by the local authorities in Ireland. That is more objectionable and high-handed because at the present time litigation is pending on this very question. The Galway County Council, for example, is liable in respect of a guarantee in connection with the Loughrea-Attymon Railway. The railway is a broad-gauge line worked by the Midland and Great Western. The Midland and Great Western contracted to pay 45 per cent. of its gross receipts to the
guaranteed railway, and any deficiency to make up the dividend of 5 per cent. on the guaranteed. railway has to be found al the expense of the ratepayers. Whatever may have been the working expenses, it is quite certain that the gross receipts have gone up very much, partly owing to the increased traffic and partly owing to the act that the fares and rates have generally been increased. It is alleged that in many cases the increase in receipts is so great as to wipe out the whole of the deficiency for which the ratepayers are liable under their contracts arrived at many years ago. In the particular case of litigation to which I have referred the arbitration under the Act of 1883 gave a certificate as to the amount due from the county council to the railway company. The county council paid and then discovered that the certificate had been based on the figures for 1913 They are now taking proceedings to recover the money as having been paid owing to an error of fact, and the railway company is instituting a Petition of Right against the Government to pit back from the Ministry of Tranport this money, and to satisfy the county council. There is no doubt about the legal position. The county ratepayers are under no liability, and it does seem most high-handed and unjust that. Parliament should try and legislate retrospectively and impose these unexpected conditions upon the ratepayers. Probably, the explanation is that the Minister of Transport was not aware of the particular position under some of these guarantees when he moved the second reading, because he said that this datum year of 1913 would be more favourable to the ratepayers than taking the old basis of calculation. He could only have said that, thinking that the deficiency was made up by a contribution on net receipts. Net receipts may have gone down owing to the increased working charges, but everyone knows that gross receipts have gone up. Therefore, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman falls entirely to the ground when you remember that these working companies have had to pay to the guaranteed companies a proportion of the gross receipts, and in that way to relieve the liability of the ratepayers. I will read what reached me this morning from the county auditor of the Loughrea and Attymon guaranteed line. He says:
I have dealt with the accounts of this line for years, and I am quite convinced that, if the ratepayers get the benefit of the contract
made with them when they gave the guarantee, the actual traffic receipts will mere than cover the guaranteed dividend.
12.0 M.
There may be some cases where the guarantee is arrived at on a different basis and where the net profits may be taken into account. If that be the case, then I admit that there is a case for separate treatment. I do strongly object to applying the first paragraph of the Schedule and tearing up existing agreements in those cases where the baronial guarantees are based on gross receipts under a free contract on behalf of the ratepayers, and I ask the Government to meet the difference either by some such provision as was embodied in the Amendment which has been ruled out of Order leaving the choice to the county councils to adopt the old basis of calculation or alternatively that of the datum year. Failing a general Amendment of this character I would ask the Government to exempt altogether those cases where the guarantee was based on gross receipts and to limit the new arrangement to those cases where the county council would certainly be liable to increase. the amount owing to the fact that the calculation is based on net receipts. I hope the Government will be willing to make some Amendment which will deal with that.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not think that I am in any way discourteous to him if I deal with this matter somewhat briefly. I desire to do full justice to the question he has put before the Committee with studied moderation and also to have regard to the hour at which we are discussing this question. The circumstances giving rise to this Bill may be recapitulated. In December, 1916, the Government determined that it was necessary to take control of the Irish railways in precisely the same way and, in fact. under the same Statute as they took control of the English railways, namely, under the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871. They entered into an agreement for the purpose with certain of the railway companies and in the agreement they had to provide not only for the normal cost of the ordinary main lines in Ireland, where they were quite able to come to terms, and to agree that the year 1913 should be the datum year as by the standard year for the purpose of the accounts as between the Government and the shareholders of the railways, but in Ireland they have had two exceptional
cases to meet, which arose as to one under the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1884. That case was this: About the date of that Act there were certain districts in Ireland which needed light railway development, and the construction of those railways was not sufficiently attractive to make it possible to obtain the necessary sums from the public, and the districts concerned were willing, in their own interests, to make terms with the companies who undertook to build the railways, and the Grand Jury of the county, which at that time represented local government administration, were given power to make presentments and to give certain guarantees so that the dividend should not be less than 5 per cent. These railways were, and are, still known as baronial railways. They were railways made at the request of the local authorities and for the purposes of local development. When the Local Government Act was passed the county councils became the successors of the Grand Juries, and the county councils are now liable to make good the dividend of 5 per cent. That was the state of things existing when this agreement was made in December, 1916, and, if hon. Members will turn to the Schedule of the Bill, they will see that Section 10, which deals with that class of case, is there set out. That vas the case of railways which had been leased for working purpose to some other railway company, and that class of case is dealt with in Clause 12 of the agreement, which is set out in detail in the Schedule. Under the Act of 1883 some method had to be provided for arriving at an adjustment of the accounts to see what was the liability of the local authority in terms of money in order to make good the deficiency, and the machinery which was set up under that Act was the provision of an Arbitration Board, nominated by the Board of Trade. It is very important to note that one of the arbitrators was to be the surveyor of the county.
It is quite obvious that when the new agreement for the taking over of the railways came into effect all the old system of accounting had to go by the board. A new state of things had arisen. They took in the case of these railways, as in the case of all the other railways, the year 1913 as being the standard year, and it was believed—I think with good cause—that in so doing they were treating the local authorities with generosity, because
it so happened that the year 1913 exceeded by about £200,000 the average of preceding years. This view appears to have been concurred in by everyone concerned. Certainly, I think I am right in saying, it was concurred in by the county council of Galway, to which my hon. and gallant Friend has made special reference, because their surveyor, as well as the auditor, gave the certificate, and the county council, without pressure of any description, made a series of payments under certificates given by their surveyor and others and in the terms of the agreement made in December, 1916. They were perfectly content with the provision, and, so far as I know, they were perfectly content until a few days ago. One of the provisions of the agreement was that the Government should, if necessary, get confirmation by Statute of the agreement. If they failed to do that, and if the railway companies that were borrowing railway companies were damnified in any way, the Government would make good instead of the county council. What is it, then, that has caused this trouble now? May I say that there is a natural desire on the part of Ireland to get a little money out of the British taxpayer—

Mr. MacVEAGH: Scotsmen have been doing it all night.

Mr. NEAL: I will not enter into that controversy between my hon. Friends on either side of the Gangway opposite. What is it that has caused the trouble? It so happens that the accounts of the county councils have to be audited by Local Government auditors. and every Member of this House is familiar with the microscopic accuracy and care with which Local Government auditors investigate accounts, not so much with a view of finding out whether there is anything seriously wrong and whether there is something technically wrong. One of these Gentlemen, in pursuance of his duties, seems to have thought that these certificates which had been given were not strictly the certificates within the Statute, nor were they. The Board of Arbitrators had no longer anything to arbitrate about. The sum was the fixed sum of the 1913 year, and they had acted with the concurrence of everyone and given their certificates as though the 1913 figures were strictly applicable to the latter half-year. The auditor said, "Technically this is wrong," and I think the auditor technically is right; but I see no justification whatever for the
county council seeking to evade the obligation which they undertook. That obligation is a limited one.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Is this the auditor sent from Dublin Castle?

Mr. NEAL: I do not know. He is the Local Government Board auditor, who audits local accounts in Ireland. The auditor having discovered a technical objection, the county council seek to transform what is a pure technicality into a matter of substance, and they are extremely fortunate in getting the very able and generous advocacy of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He is now inviting the Committee to strike out Clause 1 of the Bill. He has attempted, by an Amendment which has been ruled out of order, to do something a little less than that, and now he says, "Strike out Clause 1." When you have taken out Clause 1 what is there left? Clause 2, which tells us the Act may be called the Irish Railways Confirmation and Agreement Act, and a Schedule suspended in mid-air. Of course, that is not what he invites the Committee to do really. What he is really trying to do is to see what kind of bargain he can get out of a beginner, hoping to get one which may satisfy the county council. He cites the ease of the Loughrea and Attymon Light Railway, in respect. of which the Galway County Council has made payment amountng to somewhere between £1,000 and £2,000 in two years. This railway happens to come in categories covered by both Clause 15 and Clause 12, because it is a baronial railway guaranteed by the county council, and it is also a leased railway worked by the Midland and Great Western. He asks under these circumstances will the British taxpayer take over this obligation altogether, not only as to this railway, which means £2,000, but will you take over the Whole obligations of the whole of the railways in Ireland?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: That is not my object. My object was to give a choice to the county council of going on under the old system or coming in under this new system, which is alleged to be more favourable.

Mr. NEAL: I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman's object perfectly well. I am dealing with his Motion to reject Clause 1. If the Clause goes, the whole Bill goes, and the effect of it is that the whole of the great trunk lines of Ireland
are immediately relieved, and it thus involves a charge upon the British Exchequer of something like £60,000 per annum, because there is some little grievance which is the subject of litigation with regard to the Loughrea and Attymon Railway. There is a way in which lawyers very often get rid of these troubles, and if it will assist my hon. and gallant Friend, and incidentally assist us to conclude this Debate, I am prepared to say at once that the cost of that litigation shall be borne by the State, because it is quite right that the parties who have been put to litigation with the existing state of the law warrants should not bear the cost of that litigation. One step further, and this is as far as I can go. I think there are two or three other railways in Ireland which have the characteristics of being baronial railways, and at the same time being railways which are worked under leases by other companies. I understand my hon. Friend's point there to be this: Seeing that the payments to be made depend upon the gross receipts, even if these railways are worked at a loss, still the subsidy would have to be paid. He does not say it is just, but what he says is, "Is it lawful?"; and, speaking as he well may on behalf of the company, he asks that the law shall prevail quite irrespective of what the real merits of the case may be. I am not in a position to give the pledge that that shall be done, but I will endeavour to meet. my hon. Friend to this extent, that before this Bill is finally disposed of in another place, if the few railway companies concerned present a statement of facts and figures to the Minister which would justify him in exercising a discretion in the matter, having regard to his public duty, full consideration and weight shall be given to their statement, and the matter will be open for discussion in another place. For these reasons I hope the hon. Member will not press the matter now.

Mr. MacVEAGH: In the first place, I wish to congratulate the hon. Member (Mr. Neal) on his debut. I am not surprised that he has dealt with this matter with great efficiency and great ability, because we had experience of him before on an Irish Bill in one of the Committee rooms, and the Irish Members then came to the conclusion that he was the first Englishman they had ever met who had sufficient intelligence to understand an Irish question. To-night he has given us another illustration of that. I do not think there
is any man on that bench who could have got up and made such a. speech. It would have taken them about six months to have mastered the question. While congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his speech and on the capacity which he has shown in giving the soft answer which turneth away the wrath of the hon and gallant Member (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness), I might also congratulate the hon. and gallant Member on having drawn the speech from the representative of the Ministry of Transport. We learn now that this Bill is really brought in to remedy the muddling and plundering of the Local Government Board in Dublin. That clears the matter to some extent. We know now that it is the stupidity of Dublin Castle once more which has put my hon. Friend to the trouble of making this explanation. He did not know until I told him that it was Dublin Castle again. He will learn in time that all the mischief and trouble in Ireland springs from Dublin Castle, and every time that he has to speak on an Irish subject he will feel inclined to curse Dublin Castle from the bottom of his heart. We see another illustration in the fact that when a railway is built in Ireland Dublin Castle insists on calling it a tramway. The Attorney-General (Mr. Henry) could explain the whole system, but I cannot explain the reason, and I do not know that the Attorney-General can either.
I do not quarrel with my hon. Friend's attitude on the subject of leased railways. I think that on that point he is absolutely right, but in dealing with the baronial railways I agree entirely with my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieutenant-Colonel Guinness) that this Bill introduces two very vicious principles. The first is that it is an interference with legal proceedings which are now pending. That has happened under the Defence of the Realm Act in this country, and it has been commented on adversely in the High Courts here and also in the House of Lords, that the Government by special legislation attempted to override decrees of the High Court. This Bill also seeks to do another thing which is wrong—namely, to pass legislation which is to have a retrospective effect. I hope that my hon. Friend during the rest of his career will endeavour to steer clear of dangerous principles of that kind. There is not much use in putting the Committee to the trouble of a division, because between the blarney of
my hon. Friend and the sweet reasonableness which he has shown in his speech, combined with the advantage which he possesses of the Coalition majority, it would not be much use to go to a division, and so I confine myself to saying that I agree entirely with the provision which deals with the leased lines, and that I am glad to hear that the Ministry of Transport is prepared to make fair terms with any of the baronial lines which now submit their case to it, and I have not the slightest doubt from my experience of the hon. Gentleman and his Department, that they will give a fair and reasonable hearing to any case that is put before them.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I certainly do not wish to divide the Committee. I agree that the hon. Gentleman has done his best to meet the case. I do, however, wish to correct one statement. He appeared to think that my interest was chiefly in the companies. I do not worry about them. They are being looked after. It is the county councils who represent the ratepayers for whom I am concerned, and therefore I hope that he will consider their representations. I have no doubt that any county council which feels itself aggrieved will be very glad to take advantage of the offer which has been made.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill Reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — NURSES REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time." —[Mr. Denis Henry.]

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: On the Order Paper there are three Nurses Registration Bills, one dealing with England and Wales, one with Scotland, and one with Ireland. They have to be read together. I have got the Bills from the Vote Office—the Bill dealing with England and Wales and the Bill dealing with Ireland—but I have been unable at the Vote Office to obtain a Bill dealing with Scotland, which, I understand, has not yet been printed. If they were un-
connected it would not matter a bit, but, so far as I can see, they are very closely connected. If you look at the English Bill, in Clause 6, Sub-section you see these words:
In the event of provision being hereafter made for the establishment of a register of nurses in Scotland or Ireland, the Council shall make Rules under this Act enabling persons registered as nurses in Scotland or Ireland, as the case may be, to obtain admission to the register of nurses established under this Act; and, with a vow to securing a uniform standard of qualification in all parts of the United Kingdom, the Council shall, before making any Rules under this Act with respect to the conditions of admission to the register, consult with any Nursing Councils which may be established by Parliament for Scotland and Ireland respectively.
Therefore, so far as I can see, the English Act cannot possibly come into operation until the Irish Act and the Scottish Act have been passed. Then, if you turn to the Irish Bill, Clause 6, Sub-section 3, you see:
On the establishment of a register of nurses in England and Wales or Scotland the Council shall make Boles under this Act enabling persons registered as nurses in England and Wales or Scotland, as the case may be, to obtain admission to the register of nurses established under this Act.
The whole of this legislation, as I understand it, is to get a uniform system of registration in all three countries, and that is one piece of legislation really. What I want to know is this: Supposing you send up the two Bills that are printed, one of which we have read a second time, and the other which we are asked to read a second time; if they go to the House of Lords it seems to me that they will be completely inoperative until next Session, when, if legislation is carried out, the Scottish Bill can be passed. I should very much like to know what the Government have in their minds. Why have they not printed this Scottish Act? It seems perfectly useless to proceed with this second reading now The whole of the three Bills have to be dealt with.

Dr. MURRAY: I had waited in the House in order to a what my right hon Friend has said very much better than I could, and therefore I will not pursue it. I want to say, however, that we cannot deal with these Bills separately, we ought to have all three together. Why this bill has not been printed I cannot understand. It is down on the Order Paper with a score of other items. I hope it will be explained why it is that the Scottish Bill is not in our hands as well as the Irish Bill.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): The Bill before the House is practically a copy of the Bill that applies to England, and which has already received a third reading. A very slight verbal alteration is made to suit the administration of it to Ireland. Another provision contained in it is a provision absolutely identical to that in the English Bill which enables Irish and Scottish nurses to be registered in England. We propose that English and Scottish nurses shall be registered in Ireland. The Scottish Bill is on the Paper, and I am informed that it will be taken at the earliest possible moment, and the idea is to press this Bill and the Scottish Bill on as rapidly as possible.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Denis Henry.]

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Major BARNES: I am told at the Vote Office that this Bill is not printed. It seems to me to be no use taking a Bill which is not printed, and it is a travesty of business if we are going to pass the Second Reading of a measure not yet in our hands.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): What the hon. and gallant Member has just said is news to me. I was under the impression that this Bill was circulated many days ago.

Captain W. BENN: I am informed that it is not so.

Mr. BALDWIN: If that be the case, I apologise. It should have been in the Vote Office some days ago. I will make inquiries about it. In these circumstances I would ask the House to be good enough to give us the Second Reading, and I will not ask for any further stages to-night. This Bill is entirely a non-contentious and confirmatory measure. It is common knowledge to old Members of Parliament that by an Act of Parliament the Isle of Man has its own right of imposing Customs Duties. It can impose duties on any articles that it likes. They are imposed in the Tynwald, and formal Treasury sanction is given. But no statutory authority attaches to the
resolutions of the Court of Tynwald unless this Bill has become an Act of Parliament. This measure gives statutory force to the resolutions of the Court of Tynwald, which resolutions last for only a limited period in the absence of this confirmatory Bill. There is no more to be said about it. It is introduced at the end of every Session of Parliament. It is an annual, and for the reasons I have stated it is entirely uncontroversial. There is nothing in it we can do; we simply endorse and give statutory force to what the Manx Legislature has itself enacted. I hope that, with this brief explanation, the House will be willing to give me the Second Reading. I apologise again for the oversight with regard to the Bill, of which I was not aware.

Captain BENN: What the hon. Gentleman says with such urbanity is quite true. This is a Bill of a formal kind, but what is not normal is for the Second Reading to be taken before the Bill is printed. I am informed at the Vote Office that this Bill is not printed, and this is particularly important at a moment when changes in our fiscal system are a matter of the very greatest controversy between some hon. Members of the House. I would suggest that it would be very much better to postpone the Second Reading, so that the Bill may be printed and hon. Members may know what it contains.

Mr. BALDWIN: I have not the slightest objection to that. If I had been aware that it was not printed, I should not have pressed it to-night.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not want to enter into a conflict on this matter, but I wish to ask the Government who is responsible for placing these Papers in the Vote Office. Time and again when we say to the Government that a Financial White Paper has only been put in the Vote Office two hours before the Debate, we are told by the Government that they are not responsible, and the heads of the Departments say they are not responsible for the Papers being put there. Then, who is responsible? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is present. Can he inform the House who is really responsible for placing these Parliamentary Papers in the Vote Office? Over and over again the Government have said they are not responsible, and it is an intolerable position.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Lord E. Talbot): Would the hon. Member tell me what Government Department has said it was not responsible?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Certainly. The other day, when the Housing Bill was under discussion, I asked the Minister for Health why the White Paper containing the financial details of the Housing Bill was only placed in the Vote Office two hours before the Debate began. He got up, and said that neither he nor his Department was responsible for the Vote Office getting these papers.

Lord E. TALBOT: My right hon. Friend made a mistake.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: He did make a mistake. It is really intolerable that we should be continually placed in this position.

Question put, and agreed to.

Captain BENN: The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said it would be postponed.

Mr. BALDWIN: You did not want the Second Reading?

Captain W. BENN: No; we would rather not.

Mr. MacVEAGH: The hon. Gentleman said he would postpone it.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! There is no Question now before the House.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow (Tuesday).— [Mr. Baldwin.]

Orders of the Day — COUNTY COURTS BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time." This is in no sense a contentious measure. It is approved by Judges of the High Court, by County Court Judges, and by the Law Society. It provides for a certain extension of the powers of the County Court. it is a remarkable fact that since the Act of 1888 there has been no considerable amending Act of Parliament to extend the jurisdiction of the County Court. The present Bill supplies that need. I do not
think it is necessary to enter into the many details of the Bill, but I simply move the Second Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill.—[Sir G. Hewart.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

(Sir E. CORNWALL, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]

Clause 1 (Transfer of Actions of Contract, of Tort, and for Recovery of Land from High Court to County Court) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Transfer of Actions of Tort where Plaintiff is Without Visible Means of Paying Costs.)

The following Section shall be substituted for Section sixty-six of the principal Act:
In any action founded on tort commenced in the High Court the defendant may, on an affidavit made by himself or by any person on his behalf showing that the plaintiff has no visible means of paying the costs of the defendant should a verdict not be found for the plaintiff, apply to the Court or a judge for an Order to transfer the action to a County Court; and thereupon the Court or judge, unless the plaintiff satisfies the Court or judge that he has such means, may, if the Court or judge having regard to all the circumstances of the case thinks fit so to do, make an Order that unless the plaintiff within a time to be limited in the Order gives security for the defendant's costs to the satisfaction of the Court or a judge the action shall be transferred to such County Court to be named in the Order as the Court or judge maw deem the most convenient to the parties.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Captain W. BENN: May I ask the Attorney-General if he really intends to take the whole of the Committee stage, with twenty-seven Clauses, at this hour of the night, having got the Second Reading?

Sir G. HEWART: Certainly. I should be glad to do so, because it is really, though it contains much detail, a non-controversial measure. It has passed through all its stages in the House of Lords; it has been for a long time discussed by Committees; and it comes to this House really as a non-contentious measure.

Captain BENN: Of course, I should not dream of dividing the House. We are in a perfectly helpless condition, but I must
point out to the Committee that here is a Bill of the very greatest importance, which was printed this morning.

Sir G. HEWART: No; on the 2nd December.

Captain BENN: Printed in this House—

Sir G. HEWART: Printed on 2nd December.

Captain BENN: I am informed it was delivered this morning. If the- Government insists on having it, we can do no more than point out to the Committee what has happened. It is not to us that disrespect is shown, but to hon. Members of the Committee, in asking them to take a measure of twenty-seven Clauses at twenty to one in the morning, without their being given any opportunity of learning the contents of the Bill.

Sir G. HEWART: I am certainly not insisting—far from it; I am asking.

Captain BENN: You are in a position to insist.

Sir G. HEWART: No; I am merely asking. I should like to know what is the ingredient in the Bill to which the hon. and gallant Member objects. He does not indicate it, nor can one conjecture it. So far as I know, there is nothing in the Bill that is opposed by anybody who is acquainted with the subject-matter of the Bill. On the contrary, the Law Society, representing the solicitors, have not only approved the Bill, but they have to no small extent even suggested it. Judges of the High Court approve it—they have, by a Committee, recommended it—and it has been framed with the concurrence and at the suggestion of some of the ablest of the County Court judges.

Major BARNES: I agree with the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Benn) in his expression of feeling. My own experience in regard to this Bill is that it came to me this morning, with the Votes and Proceedings and two or three other Bills. I certainly think we can only take the statement of the Attorney-General that there is nothing in it. One would have liked to have had some little information with regard to the measure, which must be of very considerable importance. A great number of people in this country have to go through the County Courts, and with a Bill containing so many Clauses, which
seem of some importance, it would be interesting to know something about it before we pass the Committee stage.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I think we ought to protest against this proceeding on the part of the Government, because it seems to be forgotten that hon. Members have no opportunity of showing their opposition to the details of the Bill until after the Second Reading. No one can hand in Amendments until a Bill has been read a second time, and there may be many Members who have not seen that the Bill was down for Second Reading, but who have many points of substance to make, and cannot do so. If this Bill is allowed to pass to-night, I hope it will not be a precedent in future for more than one stage to be taken on a given date.

Sir G. HEWART: Might I make an appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend, who, indeed, never raises an objection without good reason? It is quite true that the Bill comes on at a late hour, but I am sure he will agree that that is not my fault. It is a Bill which, after long examination and discussion by an expert Committee, and after having received the cordial approval of that Committee, has been passed through all its stages in another place, upon the Motion of the Lord Chancellor. There is no question of controversy, so far as I am aware, and when my hon. and gallant Friend says that if Members had had a longer opportunity of considering the measure they might perhaps have moved Amendments, I say frankly that I cannot conceive on what Clause of the Bill it is suggested that those Amendments might have been moved. I quite agree that the procedure is not normal, but neither is this stage of the Session normal. It is of great importance that before we begin a new legal year the Bill should be passed into law. If there were any point of substance on which it appeared that my hon. and gallant Friend would be tempted to move an Amendment, I would certainly say, Let us postpone this stage. But I cannot imagine, nor does he at all suggest, what point of substance is likely to occur to him after the Bill has run, as we know that it has run, the gauntlet of High Court judges, County Court. judges, solicitors, and many other competent critics. I ask, therefore, that there may be no further delay.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 22.—(Juries.)

(1)The number of jurymen to be empanelled and sworn for the trial of any action in a County Court shall be eight, and the amount to be paid to the registrar for payment of the jury shall be eight shillings.
(2)The amount which a juryman may be ordered to forfeit in default of attendance shall not be more than five pounds.
(3)Sections one hundred and one and one hundred and two of the principal Act shall have effect subject to the provisions of this Section.

Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert
(3) The list of persons qualified and liable to serve as jurors in a Court shall not be delivered by the sheriff or high bailiff to the registrar of the Court unless and until a demand is made by the registrar in that behalf.

Captain BENN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
We have had the Second Reading of a Bill which has just been circulated. We have now had all the Clauses up to Clause 21 put without one single word of explanation. The right hon. Gentleman says, Why do we complain? I should like to point out that we are not putting these proposals before the House; it is the Government who are doing that. I think that, out of respect to the House, and without any disrespect to the Bill, at least some slight explanation could have been given of what all this legislation is. Now we have come to Clause 22, to which an Amendment is proposed, to which I understand there is no objection. There is no explanation of that Amendment.

Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.

Question, again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Sir G. HEWART: Perhaps I ought to have risen before in order briefly to explain the purpose of this Amendment. It is the most simple of all Amendments. As no doubt hon. Members are aware, under the law as it now stands, the lists of persons qualified to serve as jurors must be delivered to Registrars of County Courts, whether they want them or not, by the sheriffs of counties. It happens very often that these lists are not wanted. But at present they must be delivered and paid for. All that is provided by the Amend-
ment is that these lists shall not be delivered unless and until they areasked for. It is a simple measure of obvious economy.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 23, 24, and 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 26.—(Distribution of Compensation on the Death of a Dependant.)

In the event of the death of any person entitled as a dependant to money paid into a County Court under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, then, if no direction has been given as to the disposition thereof for the benefit of other dependants in the event of the death of the person entitled thereto. the Court may, without probate or letters of administration, distribute the sum amongst such persons as appear to the Court, upon such evidence as the Court may deem satisfactory, to be entitled by law to receive the same, or if the dependant so dying is illegitimate and dies intestate, amongst the persons who in the opinion of the Court would have been entitled thereto if the dependant had been legitimate; and, if there are no such persons, the Court shall deal with the sum as the Treasury may direct.

Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words
Provided that where the principal value of the estate of the dependant so dying exceeds one hundred pounds, any sum paid under this Section without probate or letters of administration shall be liable to Estate Duty as part of the amount on which that duty is charged, and the County Court shall, before making any, such payment, require a statutory declaration by the claimant, or by one of the claimants, that the principal value of the estate, including the sum in question, does not, after deduction of debts and funeral expenses, exceed the value of one hundred pounds, or the production of a letter or certificate from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue stating either that all duties payable in respect of the sum in question have been paid, or that no duty thereon is payable.
May I say, with regard to this proviso, that in the Bill as it comes from another place it appears underlined and within square brackets for the reason that it has to do with a question of taxation. It is not, of course, a question of new taxation; it is merely to preserve the existing law. The proviso makes, as I understand, no alteration in the law; it merely provides for the continuance of the law as it now stands.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 27.—(Short Title, Commencement, and Repeal.)

(1)This Act may be cited as the County Courts Act, 1919, and this Act, except so far as it amends the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, shall be construed as one with the principal Act; and the principal Act and the County Courts Act, 1903, and this Act may be cited together as the County Courts Acts, 1888 to 1919.
(2)This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty.
(3)The enactments mentioned in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent and subject as specified in the third column of that Schedule.

Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the word "January" and to insert instead thereof the word "April."
It was originally intended that the Act should come into operation on 1st January. There are, however, certain Rules to be made under the Act, and we are now asking for the date to be altered from January to April.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported.

As amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—[Sir G. Hewart.]

Captain BENN: Do the Government really intend to take all the stages of the Bill now?

Sir G. HEWART: If the hon. and gallant Member pleases.

Captain BENN: We have taken the Second Reading of the Bill. We have also taken the Committee stage without any explanation having been given.

Sir G. HEWART: if any further explanation be desired, I am ready and willing to give it. My belief was, and is, as I have said, that this is really a non-contentious measure. But it is a measure which should not be, without good reason, postponed. If there be any particular point upon which my hon. and gallant Friend desires to be satisfied, I will gladly endeavour to satisfy him now.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

RATS AND MICE (DESTRUCTION) BILL.

Lords Amendments considered.

Lords amendment: After Clause 3, insert New Clause (Notice by Local Authority of Effective Methods)—
A local authority having power to enforce this Act may, from time to time, by public notice within its area, give instructions as to the most effective methods that can be adopted, both individually and collectively, with a view to the destruction of rats and mice.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
If this Amendment be merely a new Clause enabling local authorities to give notice as to the best way of destroying rats and mice—

Mr. J. JONES: And the House of Lords !

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: —I think it would be an advantage if the House agreed with the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Powers of Local Authorities and Authorised Persons and Penalty for Interference.)

(1) Where a local authority having power to enforce this Act is of opinion that the occupier of any land in its district has failed to take such steps as are required by Section one of this Act, such local authority may either serve a notice on the occupier requiring him to take such steps within a time specified in the notice, or after not less than twenty-four hours previous notice to the occupier enter upon the land and take such steps as are necessary and reasonably practicable for the purpose of destroying the rats and mice on the land or of preventing the land from becoming infested with rats and mice, and may recover any expenses so incurred from the occupier of the land summarily as a civil debt.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (1), after the word "steps" ["to take such steps"], insert the words "as are prescribed in the notice."—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "in the notice" and insert instead thereof the word "therein."—Agreed to.

After the word "any" ["recover any expenses"] insert the word "reasonable."—Agreed to.

After Sub-section (1), insert new Subsections
(2) A local authority in the exercise of its powers under this Section shall, as far as possible, take or secure collective action for the destruction of rats or mice.
(3) The powers of a local authority under this Act may be exercised by any committee of the local authority to which the exercise of those powers may be delegated.

—Agreed to.

After Clause 5, insert

NEW CLAUSE.—(Prosecutions)

(1)A prosecution for an offence under this Act shall not be instituted except by or with the authority of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries or the local authority: Provided that this Section shall not apply to Scotland.
(2)In any proceedings under this Act a notice purporting to be signed by the clerk of a local authority shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been signed by the clerk with the authority of the local authority.

—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Interpretation.)

In this Act—
The expression "occupier" means, in the case of land not occupied by any tenant or other person, the owner of the land.
The expression "land "includes any buildings and any other erection on land, and any sewer, drain or culvert in land.

Lords Amendments: After the word "any" ["any sewer, drain or culvert "], insert the word "cellar."—Agreed to.

After the word "in" ["in land"], insert the words, "or under."

—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Application to Scotland.)

(1) This Act shall apply to Scotland with the following modifications:

(a)The Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries:
(b)The Section of this Act relating to the enforcement of the Act shall not apply, and in lieu thereof the following provisions shall have effect:

(i)The local authority for executing and enforcing this Act shall be the local authority under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897: Provided that where a port local authority has been constituted under the said Act, the local authority for executing and enforcing this Act, within the district over which such port local authority has jurisdiction shall be the port local authority;
(ii)The expenses incurred by any local authority under this Act shall be defrayed in like manner as expenses incurred by a local authority, under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897.

(2) (Application to Ireland.)
1097
(c)The expenses incurred by a local authority under this Act shall be defrayed, in the case of a county council, out of the poor rate as a county at large charge; in the case of a port sanitary authority as part of their expenses as such authority; and in the case of any other local authority as expenses incurred in the execution of the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1917.

Lords Amendments: In Sub-section (1) paragraph (b, i.), leave out the words
Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897: Provided that where a port local authority has been constituted under the said Act, the local authority for executing and enforcing this Act, within the district over which such port local authority has jurisdiction shall be the port local authority,
and insert instead thereof the words
Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914.

—Agreed to.

In paragraph (b, ii.), leave out the words "Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897," and insert instead thereof the words, "Diseases of Animals Acts, 1899 to 1914."

—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2, c), leave out "1917" and insert instead thereof "1919"

—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Short Title.)

This Act may be cited as the Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act, 1919.

Lords Amendment: At the end add the words, "and shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty."

—Agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock., Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Three minutes before One o'clock.